^^»^  .1  *  »'•%«.  4;^°"' 


PRINCETON,     N.     J. 


^/^^^^//fe//^~Vro^~P^u\  ^^(AY^"^Ve.;3)3^, 


Division . . 

Si'i'/iofi  ... 

Shelf. Numb,  r  . 


!^...J 


(ltd  ^^^^ 


t 


Ob<f'(yO 


i 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 


.ECTURES    BY 


DR.    C.    W.    HODGE, 


liEFORE   THE   JUNIOR    CLASS, 


PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 


COLLATED    FROM    PHONOGRAPHIC    NOTES    P.Y    W.    J.    ERAZER. 


WITH  SYLLABUS  PREPARED  BY  DR.  HODGE. 


EDITED    1;Y    the   CL.\SS    OK    '8o. 


PRINTED  NOT  PQ.BLISHED. 


PRINCE  TO  N : 

I'  K  r  S  S      P  r.  I  X  T  I  X  G      ESTABLISHMENT 
I  880. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  LECTURES 


NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM. 


FOR  THE  JUNIOR  CLASS. 


Books.  Scrivener's  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of 
the  K  T.  Tre.o:el]es'  History  of  the  Printed  Text. 
Home's  Introduction.  Bissell's  Historic  Origin  of  the 
Bible.  Scrivener's  Six  Lectures.  Milligan  and  Robert's 
Lectures.  Hammond's  N.  T.  Criticism.  Green's  Criti- 
cal iS'otes  on  the  N".  T.  An  .Article  in  Smith's  Diction- 
ary of  the  Bible,  by  B.  F.  Westcott.  Bleek's  Introduc- 
tion. 

The  Text  is  the  ipsissima  verba  ;  Criticism  its  ascer- 
tainment. The  necessity  for  the  study  is  in  the  existing 
variations. 

Autographs. — Unfounded  traditions  about  parts  of  the 
x^.  T.  Early  lost,  because  the  Fathers  do  not  appeal  to 
them.  The  Archaia  referred  to  by  Ignatius  an  example 
of  the  Jewish  Church.  The  Litterse  Authenticae  of  Ter- 
tullian  refers  to  a  pure  text.  Their  loss  is  accounted 
for,  by  the  fulness  of  oral  teaching,  by  early  multiplica- 
tion of  copies,  because  originals  were  not  autographs. 
See  Rom.,  1  Cor.,  2  Thess.,  Gal.  6 :  11  ;  perishable 
material  of  the  MSS.  No  N.  T.  Papyrus  extant.  See  11 
J.  verse  12.  Library  at  Cffisarea  perishing  after  100  yeq,rs. 
All  extant  papyrus  MSS.  have  been  preserved  in  tombs 
and  Herculaneura,  &c.  Persecution  also  destroyed  them. 
Traditores.  Hence  no  copies  of  the  first  three  centuries 
preserved. 


Sources  of  Corrupiion. — Various  readins^s.  Scrivener 
says  120,000  ennmerated.  From  1600  to  2000  where  the 
true  readino;  is  doubtful.  Origen's  Classificatiou  of 
Sources  of  Corruption.     Intentional  and  Unintentional. 

IregeUes,  Substitutions,  Additions,  Omissions.  Ham- 
mond, Unconscious,  three  subdivisions  :  Conscious,  live 
subdivisions.  Scrivener,  twenty  classes.  Intentional,  to 
correct  orthography,  remove  harsh  expressions,  or  histori- 
cal, or  exegetical  difficulties,  to  harmonize  parallel  pass- 
ages. Doctrinal  alterations  charged  by  early  Fathers, 
not  substantiated.  See  Mt.  19  :  17;  John  1  :  18  ;  Acts 
16:  7,20,28.  Liturgical  alterations,  Lk.  2:  41;  Acts 
8  :  11;  8  :  37  and  doxology  to  the  Lord's  prayer, 

Uinntentional  Senses.  Eye.  See  1  Tin).  3:  16  ;  2  Cor. 
2:3;  Mk.  4:  22.  Ear.  Early  copies  made  by  dictation. 
Confusion  of  vowel  sounds.  Memory,  Substitution  of 
Synonymes  and  from  parallel  passages.  Judgment,  reso- 
lution of  Abbreviations,  or  separation  of  words.  Recep- 
tion of  Glosses.     Give  examples. 

Distribution  of  errors.  Best  text,  John — next,  Paul  — 
next  Synoptical  Gospels.  Next  Catholic  Epistles.  Last, 
Acts  and  Apocalypse. 

Means  of  Recovering  True  Text.  Manuscripts.  Quo- 
tations. Versions,  Conjecture.  Conjecture  not  re- 
quired in  N".  T.  Criticism  because  of  the  choice  among 
readings. 

Manuscripts.  Scrivener  counts  about  2000.  Tischen- 
dorf  says,  about  20  from  4th,  5th  and  6th  centuries,  and 
30  from  7th,  8th,  and  9th.  Greek  literature  does  not 
possess  one-tenth  the  number. 

Uncials,  in  Go^)eU.  Tischendorf  says  40.  Scrivener 
56 — 6  entire,  4  nearly  so,  10  large  portions.  Scrivener= 
623  Cursives. 

Acts.  Tischendorf  10.  Scrivener  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles  14,  4  entire,  4  large  portions.  Scrivener  232 
Cursives. 

•  Catholic  Epistles,  6,     5  entire. 

Pauline  Epistles,  15.  2  nearly  entire,  7  large  por- 
tions.    Scrivener  283  Cursives. 

Apocalgpse,  5.  3  entire.  1  nearly  so.  Scrivener  105 
cursives. 


/^ 


^ 


A.C 

6  ■' 

J). 

1 

L  2 

4th   Century,      h  B. 

5th         "  A.  C.     Q.  T. 

6th         "  D  P  K  Z— E2  D2  Hs 

7th         '•  6  and  fragments 

8th         "  EL  A  E  li^ 

9th         "  FKM  T  Ji  H,  G,  F„  L,  K2  M„ 

10th         "  G  H  S  V  E3      "      " 

Codices  Mixti,  Codices  Puri,  Bilingnes,  Grseco-latini, 
Latinizantes. 

The  antiquity  of  a  MS.  is  a  principal  element  of  its 
authorit3%  because  copyinoj  multiplies  errors. 

1.  The  Material.  The  oldest  extant  MSS.  are  on 
parchment.  Ancient  use  2  Tim.  4 :  13.  On  account  of 
expense  papjrus  was  principally  used.  Vellum  and 
Parchment.  Oldest  MSS.  on  this  white  Vellum.  Later 
discoloured  arid  coarse  Parchment.  Some  purplish,  some 
natural  hue. 

Palimpsests.  Writing  erased  and  new  superimposed. 
Codex  C.  and  the  Nitriensis.  Restorations  by  chemicals. 
The  pen  for  papyrus  was  the  Calamus.  For  parchment 
the  stylus  needle  point  for  measuring.  Ink  without 
metallic  base  and  faded.  Cotton  paper  begins  lOtli  cen- 
tury. Some  fragments  of  New  Testament  on  paper  of 
9th.     Linen  paper  14tli  century. 

2.  Character.  Uncial  from  uncia.  In  N.  T.  MSS.  cur- 
sive writing  not  found  until  the  7th  and  not  common  till 
the  10th,  when  illumination  occurs  and  dates  are   given. 

Shape  of  letters  the  surest  criterion.  Oldest  agree 
in  shape  witli  stone  inscriptions  and  ancient  papyrus. 
See  Scrivener.  Upright  square  uncials  older  than  nar- 
row, oblong,  or  leaijing.     The  simpler  the  older. 

3.  Divisions  of  the  text.  Oldest  jVISS.  without  division 
words,  pointing,  accent,  breathings,  iota  subscript,  iota 
adscript,  in  papyri  and  inscriptions,  obsolete  about 
Christian  era,  rare  in  Sinaitic.  Breathings  and  accent 
in  A.  perhaps  prima  manu,  inserted  7th  or  8th  century 
in  older  MSS.  by  correctors.  Ancient  interpunction  onlj' 
used  by  the  grammarians.  Oldest  N.  T.  MSS.  have  a 
point  on  level  with  top  of  letters.  Stichoi  were  introduced 
by  Euthalius,  deacon  in  Alexandria,  A.  D.  458 — 490,  a 
clause  to  be  read  together.     Found  earlier  in  Ps.  and  Is. 


6 

Some  FF  mentions  earlier  existence  in  parts  ofN.  T. 

The  Stichoi  next  written  so  as  to  fill  out  lines  solid, 
noting  separation  by  a  point.  Uncial  writing  ceased  10th 
century.  Complete  system  of  pointing,  &c.,  after  print- 
ing. Enthalius  also  gives  name  to  division  of  text  into 
reading  lessons  marked  by  A  and  T.  Also  to  division 
of  Acts  and  Epistles  similar  to  titloi  of  gospels.  B  has 
marginal  notations  of  sections  older  than  Euthalius.  In 
gosjtels  titloi  are  found  ascribed  by  name  to  Tatian  the 
harmonist. 

Lectionaries,  Evangelistories,  Praxapostolaries. 

Ammonian  sections  made  by  Ammonius  of  Alexandria 
A.  D.  220  adopted  by  Eusebius — giving  reference  by 
means  of  numbers  to  parallel  passages  in  the  gospels. 
Connected  with  them  are  the  Eusebian  Canons,  ten  in 
number,  giving  a  list  of  the  parallels.  Under  the  num- 
ber of  the  Ammonian  divisions  1165  in  all,  is  put  in 
coloured  ink,  a  reference  to  the  Eusebian  canon  appended 
to  the  MSS.  and  by  reference  to  this  the  numbers  of  the 
parallels  in  the  other  gospels  are  found. 

Our  chapters  were  made  by  Cardinal  Hugo  A.  D. 
1262  for  a  concordance  to  Vulgate.  Not  adopted  in 
Eusebius'  text  till  15th  century.  Appears  in  some  late 
MSS.     Not  used  in  Eastern  church. 

Verses  found  in  no  MSS.,  made  by  Robert  Stephens 
of  Paris  while  on  a  journe3%  and  fi.rst  printed  in  his 
Geneva  Ed.  1551.  Beza's  Ed.  1565  first  incorporated 
them  into  text. 

Great  influence  of  these  divisions,  but  entirely  with- 
out authority.  Superscriptions  and  subscriptions  usually 
not  original. 

For  comparative  table  of  these  ancient  divisions  with 
modern  chapters  and  verses  see  Scrivener,  page  63. 

4.  Columns  on  page.  Earliest  MSS.  on  papyrus  rolls, 
made  of  strips  4  or  5  inches  long  and  fastened  at  the 
side,  requiring  columnar  arrangement.  When  book  form 
adopted,  this  preserved  to  resemble  the  rolls,  Sinaitic 
unique  in  having  4,  B=3.  A  few  MSS.  large  folio,  next 
small  folio  or  quarto,  some  octavo  and  even  smaller. 

5.  The  Text. — A  recent  copy  may  contain  an  old  text. 
Readings  which  are  known  to  be  old  by  comparison  with 
quotations  in  old  Fathers  is  evidence  of  antiquity. 


6.  Corrections  to  which  a  date  can  be  assigned  from 
the  MS.  to  be  older. 

Codex  Alexandrinus.  A.  British  Museum — Whole 
of  N.  T.  and  LXX.  except  Matt.  XXV— 5.  Jno.  VI. 
50_VIII.  52.  2  Cor.  IV— XII.  With  only  extant  copy 
of  Clement  of  Rome  to  Corinthians — Ammonian  Sec- 
tions and  Eusebian  Canons  complete — No  divisions  in 
Acts  and  Epistles.  These  facts  indicate  5th  Century. 
Important  because  oldest  which  has  a  text  varying  from 
j^.  B. — When  agreeing  with  them  therefore  important. 
Editions  by  Wa'de  1786— Cowper  1857. 

Vaticanus— B.  Rome— O.  and  N.  T.  excei)t  Tim.,  Tit., 
Philemon,  Heb.  IX.  14  to  end — Apocalypse  later — No 
capitals  or  chapters  or  Eusebian  divisions — character 
points  to  4th  Century,  Mai's  edition.  Tischendorf's 
visit  and  edition — Vercillonis. — Tendency  to  abbreviate. 

Ephraemi.  C.Paris.  Rescript — N.  T.  removed  12th 
Century  for  works  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  Parts  of  LXX. 
and  fragments  of  N.  T.  about  two-thirds  of  the  whole, 
luterpuuction — Animonian  divisions — 5thCentur3'.  One 
column — Edited  by  Tisch. 

Bezae.  D.  Cambridge — Presented  by  Beza  1581 — 
Gospels  and  Acts  with  Latin  Vulgate.  Strange  read- 
ings—e.  g.  Acts  VIIL  24.     1  Cor.  VI.  4. 

"  SiNAiTicus  X.  St.  Petersburg,  Discoverd  by  Tisch- 
endorf  in  Monastery  on  Mt.  Sinai. — O.  and  N.  T.  with 
Barnabas  and  Pastor.  Four  columns  on  page.  Paul's 
Epis.  before  Acts  and  Heb.  after  2  Thess.  Eusebian 
divisions  by  corrector.  Tisch.  says  older  than  B.  Scr. 
and  Treg.  about  the  same.  See  Ezra  Abbott  on  age  of 
K.  B. 

Regius.  L.  of  Gospels.  Paris — 8th  Century.  Re- 
sembles B. 

Nitriensis  —  lX.  Palimpsest  of  part  of  Luke. 

Sangallensis.  J.  Monastery  of  St.  Gall.  Switzer- 
land, Resembles  G.  of  Paul's  Epistles. 

MSS.  OF  Acts. 

Laudianus.  E.  Presented  by  Archbp.  Laud  to  the 
Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford.  Acts  only — Date  6th  or 
7th  Centurv.     First  MS.  for  Acts  VIIL  37. 


Paul's  Epistles. 

Claromontanus.  D.  Gospel  and  Acts.  D=Bezae. 
Found  at  Cler  Mont  by  Beza.     5th  or  6th  Century. 

Sangermanensis.  E.  Abbey  of  St.  Germain  de 
Prez.     10th  Century.     Copy  of  preceding. 

AuGiENSis.  F.  Angia  Dive — Island  in  Lake  Con- 
stance— 9th  Century. 

BoERNERtANUS.  G.  Belonged  to  Prof  Boener — 
Leipsic.  Mr.  Ilert  says  F.  is  a  transcript  of  G.  Also 
part  of  J. 

Apocalypse. 

Contained  in  x  and  C.  B.  of  Apocalypse — Not  Vati- 
canus.     Treg.  ^alls  Q.  8th  Century. 

P.  PoRPHYRiANUS — Acts,  Epistlcs  and  Apocrypha. 
Of  cursives— 33  Gospels— 13  Acts— 17  Pauls.  Like  B. 
D.  L.     69  Gospels,  31  Acts,  37  Paul,  14  Apoc. 

Leicestrensis — Note.  These  MSS.  are  enumerated  to  guide  the  student 
to  seek  a  full  description  of  them  and  to  examine  fac  similes  of  such  as  are 
contained  in  the  Librury. 

Second  Source  of  Text.  Quotations.  Often  older  than 
MSS. — yet  no  reading  to  be  adopted  from  them  alone. 
They  witness  reading  of  MS.  from  which  made  ;  also 
the  locality  of  it.  LaUn  Fathers  important  for  Vulgate 
—Greek  direct  for  Greek  Text.  Drawbacks  in  using 
them— MSS.  of  the  J^'athers  never  so  old  as  of  Gk.  Text 
— No  standard  text. 

Form  altered  in  copying  Fathers.  Same  Fathers 
quote  differently.  Lowest  value  controversial  writers- 
next  devotional  Exegetical  authors  most  valuable  in 
quotations. 

Comparative  Criticism  is  the  comparison  of  the  Greek 
MS.  with  the  MSS.  of  Quotations  and  Versions. 

Third  Source  of  Text—  Versions.  See  Smith's  Diction- 
ary  of  the  Bible.  Some  older  than  MSS.,  must  be  ancient. 
And  immediate.  Illustrations  in  Acts  XIII.  18.  Bent- 
ley's  work  on  Vulgate— and  report  as  to  comparison  Gk. 
MSS.— MSS.  not  so  old  as  Gk.,  but  an  independent  line 
of  testimony. 

Critical — Exegetical— Philological  uses— connections 
with  history  of  church— Eastern  divisions,  Western  unity. 


Peshito — Sjriac.  2ud  Century, some  say  1st.  Edessa 
in  Messopotamia — Text  revised  — Canon  lacks  II.  P.,  II., 
III.  Jno.,  Jude  and  Rev.  Oldest  MS.  6th  Century.  Old- 
est edition  1555. 

CuRETONiAN  Syriac.  MS.  brought  from  Nitrian  desert 
in  1847 — of  large  portions  of  Gospels.  Named  from  the 
discoverer  and  editor — Canon  Cureton.  Ascribed  to  5th 
Century  but  believed  to  contain  older  text  than  Peshito. 

Philoxeniana  or  Harclean.  Made  in  6th  Centurv 
by  Bp.  Polycarj)  for  Bp.  Pliiloxenus  of  Maberg.  Revised 
100  years  later  by  Thomas  Van  Haskel,  Monk  of  Alexan- 
dria.    Readings  of  two  old  Gk.  MSS,  in  margin. 

Jerusalem  Syriac.  Southern  Palestine.  Single  MS. 
11th  Century. 

Egyptian  Versions. 

By  end  of  2nd  Century.  Native  MSS.  numerous 
in  Upper  Egypt  or  Thebais.  Large  community  of  Mono- 
physites  at  times  of  Mohammedan  invasion.  Koptic  still 
continued  to  be  ecclesiastical  language.  The  Sahidic 
i.e.  Hill  Country,  of  upper  Egypt.  Large  fragments 
extant.  Name  Koptic  commonly  given  to  the  Mem- 
PHiTic  of  Lower  Egypt.  MSS.  belong  to  the  10th  Cen- 
tury. Date  not  certainly  ascertained — probably  end  ot 
2nd  or  3rd  Century. 

Aethiopic  V.  Frumentius.  4th  Century  founded 
Christianity  in  Abyssinian.  Language  now  corrupted. 
Sheez  not  spoken,  but  used  in  church  service.  The  Am- 
harist,  inade  l\v  missionaries  in  what  is  now  the  popular 
language,  since  14th  century. 

Armenian.  Syriac  used  till  5th  Century.  Alphabet 
made  by  Messop,  and  Version  afterwards  revised. 

Georgian.     About  6th  Century. 

Arabic  Versions.  No  national  church.  Versions  re- 
quired by  remnants  of  churches  when  language  super- 
seded.    One  in  Spain  in  8th  Century. 

Persian  Versions.  Early  they  used  Peshito.  Moham- 
medan life  revived  language  and  literature  and  Peshito 
translated. 

L-dtin  Versions.  Greek  familiar  throughout  empire. 
Tertullian  speaks  of  a  Latin  Vers,  already  in  use. 
Augustine  seems  to  refer  to  multiplicity  of  such  transla- 


10 

tions.  Extant  MSS.  of  ante-Jerome  Latin  exhibit  many 
variations,  but  at  the  same  time  indicate  an  Ammonian 
origin.  Name  Itala,  as  used  by  Augnstine,  thought  by 
some  to  reter  it  to  Italy.  But  is  agreed  to  have  origi- 
nated in  Mts.  of  Africa,  by  conformity  of  its  language 
quotations  of  Latin  Fathers.  Cited  a,  b,  c,  &c. 
Principal  MSS. 

(a)  Vercellensis  at  Vercelli,  4th  Century. 

(b)  Veronensis  at  Verona  4th  or  5th  Century. 

(c)  Colbert  at  "     11th 

(e)  Palatinus  at  Vienna     4th  or  5th         '' 

(f)  Brixianus  at  Brescia    Gth  " 

ff,  tf2,  Corbienses.  Abbey  of  Corbey  Picardy — very 
ancient,  32  in  all  Scr.  a  b  c=primitive  African  form, 
opening  with  D.  and  Curetonian.  Others,  perhaps  Itala 
of  Augustine,  an  Italian  recension  of  this.  Gospels 
edited\y  Tisch.  1847. 

The  Vulgate.  The  old  Latin  revised  by  Jerome  with 
comparison  of  Gk.  MSS.  O.  T.  trans,  directly  from 
Hebrew.  Altho'  favoured  at  Rome,  not  introduced  'till 
Gregory  the  Great,  and  then  not  enforced.  During  this 
period  text  much  corrupted.  Printing  made  it  necessary 
to  have  a  standard.  Council  of  Trent  1546.  Sixtine 
Edition  1590.  Recalled  for  errors.  In  1592  Clementine 
Ed. 

MSS.  of  Vulgate  more  numerous  than  of  any  other 
book.  Bentley,  Lachmann,  Tregelles,  Vercillone,  labour- 
ed on  this  text.  Treg.  cites  only  six.  Tiscli.  more  but 
of  minor  interest.  Most  important  is  Amiatit)us  (am.) 
at  Florence,  named  from  Cistucian  Monastery  at  Monte' 
Amiatino  in  Tuscany.  Whole  Bible  written  by  the 
Abbot  Servandus  541.  Basis  of  Latin  text.  Tr^g.'s  N. 
T.  Fuldensis — Fu  or  Fuld.  Same  age,  from  Abbey  of 
Fulda  in  Hesse  Cassel.     Harleian  7th  Centui'y. 

Northern  Versions. 

Gothic  4th  Century.  Gospels,  part  of  Epistles  and  of 
O.  T.  extant.  Made  by  Ulfilas,  Bp.  who  made  alphabet 
for  it.  Language  died  out  about  9th  Century.  Codex 
Argentius  found  by  Arnold  Mercator,  in  service  of  I^and- 
grave  of  Hesse.  Other  portions  by  Cardinal  Mai  in  Italy, 
Philological  interest.     See  Miiller's  Lectures. 


11 

Sclavonic  9th  Century. 

Afterward  Reformation  translations,  and  Bible  Socie- 
ties.    See  Reuss's  list. 

The  Prbikd   Text. 

Three  stages — Editio  Princeps — The  Textns  Recep- 
tns.  Critical  Editions.  Vulgate  preceded  Gk.  printing. 
First  portions  of  Gk.  Test,  printed  were  Luke  I.  42 — 56 
and  68 — 80.  Appended  to  an  edition  of  the  Psalms 
from  the  Septuagint,  Venice  1486.  Xext,  six  chapters 
of  John,  appended  to  Poems  of  Gregory  of  Kaziaiizus, 
Venice  1504.  First  independently  published  fourteen 
verses  of  first  chapter  of  John.     Tubingen,  1514. 

First  edition  printed  was  volume  V.  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  Complutum  or  Alcala  in  Spain — by  Cardinal 
Ximenes,  Finished  January,  1514,  but  publication  de- 
layed till  1520.  Supposed  connection  with  MS.  in  Vati- 
can, especially  B.,  gave  it  weio;ht.  Now  proved  er- 
roneous idea,  and  the  editions  based  on  MSS.  not  older 
than  tenth  century.  Alterations  in  favor  of  Vulgate 
changed,  disputed  by  Scr. 

Three  series  of  five  editions  each,  in  transmission  of 
common  text.  Man}- others  published,  but  these  in  line 
of  transmission. 

Erasmus,  1516,  based  on  a  few  MSS.  now  in  Basle, 
folio  with  Latin  version.  Charged  with  altering  text 
and  conforming  to  Vulgate.  Probably  no  proof  of  pro- 
posed alteration.  Very  hastily  executed,  but  under  cir- 
cumstances admirably.  From  his  2nd,  1519,  Luther's 
translation  was  made  ;  3rd,  1522,  admitted  1  John,  v, 
7,  8,  after  controversy  and  under  protest;  4th  and  5th, 
Edin.  1527,  1535.  For  all  only  eight  MSS.  employed, 
twenty  impressions,  and  of  the  first  two  alone  3300 
copies. 

Stephen's  editions.  Paris.  First  two  small,  12  MSS., 
known  as  Mirifica  from  opening  words  of  preface. 
Founded  on  Complutensian.  3rd  edition  is  thus  im- 
portant one,  known  as  the  Regia  1550,  based  on  5th 
Erasmus,  and  standard  of  common  text  in  English,  folio, 
with  readings  of  15  MSS.  4th  Geneva,  first  to  intro- 
duce verses.     5tb  1569,  after  his  death  by  his  son. 


12 

Beza's  Editions,  published  at  intervals  from  1559  to 
1598.  The  former  date  given  wrong  in  Tregelles  and 
often  elsewhere.  Introduced  comparison  of  Eastern 
versions,  and  some  old  MSS.,  D.  of  gospels,  and  D.  of 
Paul's  epistles.  Founded  on  Stephen's  Regia.  Last 
important  effort  after  text  for  a  century.  • 

The  immediate  method  of  introduction  of  Ammonian 
text  was  by  the  Elzevirs  of  Leyden — 1624  small  edition 
of  Gk.  text,  like  their  classics.  And  in  1633  an  edition 
with  verses  separated,  founded  on  the  Regia,  altered  in 
a  few  cases  after  Beza.  Textum  ergo  habes  nunc  ab 
omnibus  receptum,  &c.  The  Elzevir  text  has  been  the 
standard  on  the  continent  and  the  Stephens  in  England. 
Tisch.  enumerates  150  differences  between  two.  Scr., 
287.  The  text  of  Erasmus,  based  on  few  and  late  MSS., 
is  thus  far  the  basis  of  common  text. 

Critical   Editions  and  Principles. 

Walton's  Poli/glott,  London  1657.  Walton  afterwards 
Bishop  Chester  6  vols.,  folio.  5th  N.  T.  with  five  orien- 
tal versions.  Text  Regia — Alexandrian  MS.  collated 
with  16  others  under  Archbishop  Usher.  Reading  of 
Velez. 

John  Fell,  Bishop,  Oxford  1675,  800  with  18  new 
MSS. 

John  3nil  1707  Oxford,  after  30  years  labor.  With 
full  critical  apparatus  30,000  different  readings.  Led  to 
alarm  and  discussion.  Charged  that  violated  inspira- 
tion. Whitby's  review  of  Mill  insists  on  the  common 
text. 

Bentley.  Master  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  1699. 
Allayed  this  fear.  Proposals  and  materials  for  an 
edition  which  was  never  published.  Labors  in  restoring 
text  of  Vulgate,  and  establishment  of  Greek  text  by 
comparison. 

Bengel.  Contemporary  with  Bentley  1687  —  1752. 
Published  4to.  Tlibingen  1734.  Two  advances — for- 
mation of  the  rule  tliat  the  more  difficult  reading  is  to 
be  preferred  to  the  easier,  and  the  recognition  of  simi- 
larity   in    the    variations    of  MSS.  proving   a    common 


13 

origin.  Two  fomilies,  African  and  Asiatic,  and  proposed 
MSS.  should  count  not  numerically  but  by  families. 
His  text  is  the  first  which  professedly  departed  from  the 
receptus.  First  to  quote  both  sides.  Great  advance 
scientifically. 

Wetstein  1693—1754,  opponent  of  Bengel  theologically 
as  well  as  in  criticism.  Charged  ancient  MSS.  with  alte- 
rations after  the  Latin.  Most  numerous  authorities  ap- 
pealed to,  give  Elzevir  text.  His  edition  valuable  de- 
positor}^  of  classical,  Patristic,  and  Rabbinical  illustra- 
tions.    Augmented   materials  of  criticism. 

Griesbach.  The  founder  of  modern  criticism. 
Professor  in  Halle — pupil  of  Lemler  and  Ernesti  1745 — 
1812.  Carried  out  Bengel's  idea  of  classifications,  sub- 
dividing the  Africans,  making  them  families,  Western, 
Alexandrian,  Constantinopolitan.  These  contain  recen- 
sions of  the  text.  The  Occidental  was  the  oldest,  used 
in  Italy  and  North  Africa,  greatly  corrupted,  contained 
in  D.,old  Latin  and  Vulgate  versions  and  Latin  Fathers. 
The  Alexandrian,  made  beginning  3d  century,  being  an 
attempted  revision  of  the  former,  found  in  Origen,  ABC 
L  of  gospels  and  Egyptian  version.  Constantinopolitan 
about  4th  century,  from  a  combination  of  the  two 
former,  comprising  i^  of  old  MSS.  Union  of  two 
recensions  decisive.  If  two  older  decisive  the  modern 
became  umpire.  Application  of  the  principle  favored 
oldest  text.  Principles.  (1)  No  readings  to  be  adopted 
without  support  of  some  ancient  testimony.  (2)  In 
themselves,  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the 
longer.  (3)  The  most  difiicult,  harsh  and  unusual  is 
to  be  preferred  to  the  simple  one.  (4)  The  orthodox 
reading  is  suspicious.  This  theory  of  recensions  was 
applied  with  different  conclusions  by  other  critics,  e.  g., 
Hug,  Eichhorn,  and  is  believed  not  to  be  historically 
proved,  and  has  given  place  to  a  different  conception  of 
the  grouping  of  MSS. 

l/a?<^<:ez,"Classical  Professor,  Moscow,  published  an 
edition  at  Riga,  1782,  based  on  70  MSS.  brought  from 
Mt.  Athos,  with  30  others,  all  of  them  of  Latin 
family. 


14 

Scholz.  R.  C.  Dean  of  Theology  at  Bonn.  Much 
copied  in  England,  because  advocating  the  authority  ot 
later  M8S.  gave  him  a  conservative  position  towar<ls  the 
common  text.  Travelled  and  collected.  List  of  MSS. 
double  Griesbaeh's.  Adopted  complicated  recension 
theory.  Afterward  fell  back  on  simple  division  into 
Alexandrian  and  Constantinopolitan.  But  gave  chief 
weight  to  Constantinopolitan  on  the  ground  that  they 
agreed  amons;  themselves.  Edition  quarto  2  vols  1830- 
3a  Unreliable  and  full  of  errors.  In  answer  to  his 
principle  it  is  said,  1st,  that  modern  MSS.  ditier  among 
themselves  as  much  as  they  do  from  the  older.  Scriv- 
ener, who  upholds  the  later  text,  puts  it  on  different 
ground,  claiming  individual  authority  for  later  MSS.  as 
independent  witnesses  of  older  which  are  lost.  Claims 
that  later  proof  has  swept  away  forever  the  idea  of  a 
standard  Constantinopolitan  text.  2nd,  Admitting  the 
fact,  it  may  be  otherwise  accounted  for,  by  intentional 
assimilation  of  copies.  3d,  The  testimony  of  compari- 
tive  criticism.  At  close  of  his  life  Scholz  declared  him- 
self ready  to  adopt  marginal  readings  of  his  first  edition 
into  the  text,  which  he  has  noted  as  Alexandrian. 

Laciimann— Small  12  mo.  1831.  Edited  in  2  vols. 
1842-1850.  First  to  regard  the  text  as  question  of  evi- 
dence alone,  and  ancient  evidence.  Admitted  for  the 
gospels  only  ABC  and  fragments  P  Q  T  L  ;  Acts  D  E, 
and  Paul  D  E  H,  Latin  V  and  Fathers.  He  restored  text 
of  Ante-Jerome  Latin  and  compared.  Proposed  to  give 
text  of  4th  century,  on  principle  that  attempt  to  go  be- 
yond it  would  cause  more  errors  than  it  would  remove. 
He  distinguished  between  the  duty  of  the  editor  and  the 
exegete.  Great  value  of  Lachmann's  services.  Difficul- 
ties" are  the  too  narrow  range  of  authorities,  and  the 
wrong  problem  presented. 

TiscHENDORF— 1st  edition  in  1841,  2nd  in  Leipsic, 
1849,  with  Prolegomena.  7th  edition  most  complete 
Prolegomena.  8th  complete  except  Prolegomena.  Died 
December,  1874.  Endeavors  to  form  a  text  upon  an- 
cient evidence  alone,  and  appeals  to  all  sources.  Prin- 
ciples. 1st.  Reading  peculiar  to  one  ancient  document 
is  suspicious,  and  one  which  seems  to  have  originated 


15 

in  the  revision  of  a  learned  man.  2nd,  Readings  how- 
ever supported,  are  to  be  rejected  when  they  appear  to 
have  originated  in  errors  of  copyists.  3d,  In  parallel 
passages  readings  are  preferred  which  are  not  in  precise 
accordance.  4th,  In  various  readings,  that  is  to  be 
adopted  which  appears  to  have  given  occasion  to  the  rest 
and  best  aricounted  for  their  origin. 

True  statement  of  Bengel's  principles.  Difficulty 
with  his  statements  is,  it  regards  only  intentional  errors 
— and  leads  to  extremes.  5th,  Regard  is  to  be  had  to 
style  of  K  T.  Greek  and  of  the"  individual  author. 
Tischendorf  is  criticized  for  ignorance  of  oriental  lan- 
guages, quoting  from  inaccurate  Latin  translations;  for 
changing  his  opinions,  e.  g.,  Edition  8th  differs  from  7th 
in  3369  places;  forgiving  undue  weight  to  x  and  making 
K  B.  together  stronger  than  all  the  other  testimony. 

Tregelles.  -—  1854.  History  of  the  printed  text. 
1856,  rewrote  Introduction  to  Textual  Criticism  in 
Home's  Introduction.  History  J^.  T.  issued  in  parts  from 
3857-1872.  Paralyzed  in  1861,  died  1875,  while  the 
Apocalypse  was  incomplete  and  no  Prolegomena.  Pro- 
posed to  give  evidence  only  which  he  had  personally  in- 
spected. Result  like  Lachmarin,  to  confine  to  very  old- 
est witnesses.  Attention  to  Y  V  and  Fathers.  Give 
selection  of  evidence. 

Wescott  and  Hort. — Gospels,  Acts  and  Catholic 
Epistles,  in  hand  for  20  years,  not  published.  Intended 
to  furnish  most  careful  weighing  of  evidence. 

Scrivener. — Introduction  to  criticism.  Small  and 
practically  valuable  edition,  showing  by  heavy  type  the 
various  readings  adopted  by  several  authorities — but 
without  the  evidence  and  without  his  own  judgment. 
Stands  alone  in  advocating  independent  value  of  later 
MSS.  and  in  allowing  greater  force  to  internal  evidence. 

Good  texts  for  students  are  Knapp-Halle  1797.  Titt- 
man  on  Knapp,  1820.  Hahn  on  Tittman,  1840.  Bag- 
ster's  students'  iST.  T.  in  large  print. 

No  text  finally  settled  by  agreement  of  critics.  Others 
may  be  discovered.  Text  of  versions  not  settled.  Much 
to  be  done  in  editing  text  of  various  Fathers.  Results 
negative,  but  all  the  more  valuable  for  that. 


16 

Recapitulation   of   Principles  and  Present   State  of 
THE  Controversy. 

Of  the  three  depositions  of  the  text  V  V  and  quota- 
tions are  a  secondary  evidence  to  MSS. 

Among  MSS.  the  oldest  are  probably  the  purest — but 
in  every  question  their  testirnonj^  must  be  supported  by 
external  evidence  of  V  V  and  quotations.  A  few  cur- 
sives bear  the  same  test. 

What  is  to  decide  where  these  ancient  authorities 
differ?  Here  the  two  schools  divide.  The  school  of 
Lachmann,  so  called,  appeal  alone  to  the  comparative 
criticism.  Scrivener  appeals  to  modern  MSS.  and  in- 
ternal evidence. 

Much  weight  is  given  by  all  to  the  principle  of  group- 
ing. Not  Griesbach's  idea  of  recensioiss.  But  recog- 
nizing similarities  in  certain  groups,  on  the  principle  of 
variety  of  evidence,  the  wider  the  range  of  testimony, 
the  more  different  in  internal  character  and  the  more 
separated  in  geographical  position  the  stronger  the  infer- 
ence. Scrivener  says  B  the  best ;  B  C  the  strongest  com- 
bination. ABC  very  strong.  Opposed  statement  of 
canons  of  external  evidence. 

Scrivener. — 1.  The  text  cannot  safely  be  derived  from 
any  one  set  of  authorities,  but  must  be  the  result  of  an 
estimate  and  comparison  of  them  all. 

2.  Where  there  is  a  real  agreement  of  MSS.  up  to 
the  6th  century  in  the  Gospels  and  the  9th  in  Acts,  the 
testimony  of  later  MSS.  and  V  V  must  be  regarded  with 
suspicion,  unless  upheld  by  strong  internal  evidence. 

3.  Where  the  oldest  MSS  disagree,  the  testimony  ot 
later  uncials  and  cursives  is  of  importance  as  witnesses 
for  older  MSS.  than  those  now  extant. 

4.  The  highest  value  belongs  to  readings  from  re- 
mote aiid  independent  sources,  and  those  least  alike  i>) 
character. 

Contrasted  with  Tregelles's  statement.  1.  He  pro- 
poses (in  his  Printed  Text)  to  give  a  text  on  the  oldest 
authorities,  so  as  to  present  as  far  as  possible  that  com- 
monly received  in  the  4th  centur3^  2.  In  cases  in  which 
we  have  certain  proofs  which  carry  us  still  nearer  the 
Apostolic  age  to  use  the  data  so  afforded.     3d.  In  cases 


17 

where  tlie  oldest  documents  agree  in  certain  error, 
to  state  the  reading  so  supported,  but  not  to  follow  it, 
and  to  give  the  ground  on  which  another  reading- 
is  preferred.  4th.  In  matters  altogether  doubtful, 
to  state  distinctl}'  the  conflicting  evidence,  and  then 
approximate  a  true  text. 

Tregelles  calls  both  exegetical  judgment,  and  modern 
MSS.  conjecture.  The  principle  seems  to  difter  more 
than  the  results.  It  is  a  matter  of  evidence.  In  majority 
of  cases  all  agree.  And  there  is  growing  agreement  in 
the  majority  of  doubtful  cases. 

The  following  are  examples  of  some  of  the  more  important  changes 
proposed.  Students  may  collect  the  evidence  in  each  case  from  the 
books  at  his  command,  and  apply  the  principles  above  stated.  Matt, 
xvi.  9-20  ;  Lk.  xxiv.  57  ;  Matt.  vi.  12,  13  ;  John  v.  3,  4  ;  John  vii.  53  ; 
viii.  11  ;  John  i,  18:  John  iii.  13  ;  Acts  viii.  23  ;  Acts  ix.  28;  1.  John 
V.  7,  8  ;  I.  Tim.  iii,  16  ;    I.  Pet.  iii.  15  :  I.  John  iv.  2,  3. 

The  English  Bible 

Books.  Westcott's  History.  Eadie's  History.  1876. 
— Lightfoot.  EUicott  and  Trench  on  revision,  repub- 
lished with  Introduction  by  Dr.  Schaff". 

Earlier  Translations.  "^  In  8th  century;  Psalms  in 
Anglo  Saxon.  St.  John  by  Bede.  In  9th  century  10 
comdts.  and  fragments  by  Alfred.  In  10th  the  Gospel 
and  O  T.  Books.  In  14tli  century  three  versions  of  the 
Baltic.  Wycklifte  in  1356— tinislied  N.  T.  in  1380,  and 
whole  Bible  in  1384.  Revised  by  J.  Penney,  1388— 
widely  circulated  till  printing. 

Wm.  Tyndall  born  1484.  Hamburgh  1524  published 
Mtt.  and  Mk.  In  Cologne  finished  N.  T.  in  4to.  But 
escaped  to  Worms  and  issued  an  8vo.  to  elude  the  authori- 
ties. These  reached  EnoJand  1526.  Proscribed  by 
Henry  VIH.  By  1530,  6  editions  introduced  into  Eng- 
land, 15,000  cop"ies,  of  which  less  than  half  a  dozen  re- 
main. Pentateuch  in  1530.  In  1534  Jonah,  and  after- 
wards "  Epistles  from  the  O.  T."  Second  revised  edition 
1534.  1536  first  edition  published  in  England,  year  of 
Tyudall's  death.  Westcott's  collations  showing  internal 
history  of  the  translation.  Mistakes  of  Hallam  and 
Froude.  Proved  independence  of  Tyndall.  Shew  also 
how  much  remained  in  A.  V.  e.  g.  ^-^  I.  John  f  Eph. 
Style  and  vocabulary. 


18 

Coverdak.  1534  convocation  of  Canterbury  pra_yecl 
thekingforatranslation.  Coverdale appointed.  Fronde's 
mistake  corrected.  Basis  N.  T.  Tyndale,  and  Pent. 
Other  parts  O.  T.  Zurich  Bible  1524.  Payninus,  Luther 
and  Vulg.  Polished  the  translation,  and  restored  Eccle- 
siastical terms.  Psalms  in  Eng.  Prayer  Book,  1st  edi- 
tion 1534.     2d  1537.     Free  circulation. 

Matthews.  Posthumous  translation  by  Tyndall  from 
Joshua  to  II.  Chron.  in  liands  of  John  Rogers,  com- 
posite edition  from  Tyndale,  using  Coverdale  for  rest  of 
O.  T.  and  N.  T.  Tyndale  last  edition.  Sanctioned  by 
Henry,  though  identical  with  that  before  proscribed. 
Basis  for  subsequent. 

The  Great  Bible.  Objection  to  doctrinal  prologue  and 
margin  in  Matthews.  Edited  by  Coverdale.  Copy  to 
be  set  up  in  every  church.  Bible  readers.  Six  editions 
in  1540.  1541 — Basedan.  Revision  ot  Matthews  with 
Minister,  and  in  K  T.  by  Erasmus. 

Reaction.  1543  reading  prohibited.  1547  Henry 
died.  Under  Edward  in  six  years  13  editions  Bible,  and 
35  of  N.  T.    .Persecutions  under  Mary  1553-1557. 

Geneva  Bible.  Refugees  in  Geneva  1556  issued  Bible 
Founded  0.  T.  on  Great  Bible.  Corrected  by  Beza,  Leo 
Judes,  Pellican,  Payninus.  N".  T.  text  Tyndale  directly- 
emended  by  Beza.  Small  4to. — in  Roman  letters,  and 
verses  separated.  Copious  notes.  Continued  Bible  of 
England  for  |  century.     Slowly  yielding  to  A.  V. 

IVie  Bishop's  Bible.  In  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  there  were  therefore  two  Bibles  in  use,  in  the 
church  and  among  the  people,  the  great  Bible  and  the 
Genevan.  Hence  a  new  attempt  at  uniformity.  Eight 
Bishops  employed  under  Archbp.  Barker.  Published  in 
1568,  2d  Ed.  1572.  Authorized  to  be  used  in  churches, 
but  never  supplanted  the  Genevan.  So  that  at  the  close 
of  Elizabeth's  reign  there  were  still  two  Bibles. 

The  Authorized  Version.  James  I.  personally  pro- 
moted the  work.  Nearly  50  scholars  appointed,  divided 
into  six  companies,  two  in  Westminster,  two  in  Oxford, 
two  in  Cambridge.  Bishop's  Bible  the  text.  Preface 
by  Dr.  Miles  Smith,  afterwards  Bp.  Gloucester.  Printed 
1611  by  Barker.     But  standard  text   in   Cambridge  Ed. 


19 

of  1638.  Did  not  displace  the  Genevan  in  popular  use 
till  the  middle  of  ihe  century.  Called  authorized,  and 
was  so  practically,  altho'  no  evidence  of  any  decree  to 
that  effect  either  by  church  or  state.  Much  improvement 
over  previous  translations  based  on  the  Bishop's,  with 
use  of  Genevan,  Rhemes  and  Douay,  Tremellius,  Jiezu 
and  earlier  Latin  Versions.  |-  said  to  be  due  to  Tyndale. 
Illustrations  of  need  of  revision  from  Trench,  Elli- 
cott  and  Lightfoot. 


XjEGTTJK/EIS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Authorities  on  the  subject  are  : 
g    ^^   f  Tregelles's  History  of  the  Printed  Text. 

■  \  Scrivener's  Introduction  totheStudy  of  the  N.  T. 
TBissell's  Historic  Origin  of  the  Bible. 
12  mo.<|  Scrivener's  Six  Lectures. 

(Milligan  and  Roberts'  Lectures. 
^P  f  Hammond's  x^.  T.  Criticism. 

^^  """^-"^  Smith's  Diet.  art.  "  N'ew  Test."  Wescott. 

There  are  four  subjects  which  properly  belong  to  this 
department,  two  of  which  Dr.  Alexander  treats  in  outline 
— the  Canon  and  Philology.  This  leaves  for  us  The  Text 
and  Textual  Criticism  ;  and  I  must  confine  myself  to 
things  of  immediate  practical  use  to  you.  By  text  is 
meant  the  ipsissinia  verba.  Criticism  is  that  science  wliich 
establishes  the  ipsissima  verba.  The  term  criticism  has  a 
wide  application.  Technically  itis  applied  to  the  words, 
not  the  meaning  of  the  words.'  There  is  a  prejudice  that 
criticism  tends  to  infidelity  ;  on  the  contrary  investiga- 
tion builds  a  firm  foundation  for  faith.  The  question  is, 
what  has  God  done?  not  what  ought  he  to  have  done? 
There  is  an  inconsistency  in  the  matter;  those  most 
thoroughly  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  are 
most  conservative  ;  they  ought  to  be  in  the  fore  front. 
The  more  thorough  the  investigation  the  more  grounds 
for  believing  we  have  the  very  words.  What  are  we  to 
say  of  verbal  inspiration  v^'hen  the  church  cannot  agree 
as  to  the  words  of  the  text?  Thorough  investigation 
tends  to  do  away  with  difficulties.  Serious  difficulties 
exist  only  in  very  few  points.  It  is  a  matter  of  wonder 
that  the  church  can  agree  upon  as  many  as  it  does.  The 
result  of  investigation  is  to  bring  about  agreement. 


""^  There  is  not  an  inaccessible  and  recondite  stud}^  but 
only  so  in  some  respects.  We  have  not  the  manuscripts, 
it  is  true,  but  modern  science  gives  us  them,  and  we  must 
judge  upon  them.  The  first  question  is,  What  can  be 
said  about  the  original  copies  of  tlie  N.  Testament  as  they 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles?  can  any  satisfac- 
tory explanation  be  given  of  their  loss?  The  gospel  of 
Mark,  it  is  stated,  was  written  at  Rome,  but  we  hctve  no 
trustworthy  evidence  of  it;  in  the  5th  century  the  auto- 
graph of  Matthew  was  said  to  have  been  found  ;  also  that 
of  St.  John  at  Ephesus.  These  statements  are  unsup- 
ported by  proof.  None  of  the  fathers  knew  anything  of 
autographs  or  originals  ;  they  never  referred  any  dis[)Ute 
to  any  authoritative  standard.  This  fact  shows  they  had 
none.  Certain  exceptions  to  this  statement  have  been 
drawn  from  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  who  says,  "  Some  will 
not  believe  unless  they  see  the  Archia ;"  but  he  meant 
either  the  O.  T.  or  examples  of  the  early  church.  So 
Tertullian  speaks  of  "  literas  aulhenticas,"  referring  to 
copies  read  in  the  churches  ;  but  he  only  contrasts  Greek 
texts  with  defective  translations.  If  then,  no  trace  of 
originals  is  found,  how  are  we  to  account  for  their  loss  ? 

I.  These  writings  did  not  hold  so  exclusive  a  place  in 
the  estimation  of  the  early  Christians  as  in  our  times. 
They  had  better  opportunities  for  oral  instruction.  The 
gospel  was  oral  ;  questions  were  referred  to  tlie  ajjostles 
for  adjudication.  So  long  as  the  immediate  scholars  of 
the  apostles  lived  they  were  the  personal  resort.  So  the 
book  did  not  cnme  to  be  the  standard  for  a  long  time. 
Therefore  the  importance  of  it  was  not  realized,  and 
during  this  time  the  fatal  lapse  occurred. 

II.  Copies  were  early  made  for  distribution,  and  read 
in  the  churches.  The  originals  were  worn  out  and  lost 
sight  of,  and  the  necessity  for  an  authentic  standard  was 
only  felt  after  it  was  too  late. 

III.  The  originals  were  probably  not  written  in  auto- 
graphs, but  by  clerks.     Gal.  6  :  11. 

IV.  The  great  expense  of  parchment  and  poverty  of 
the  early  Christians  make  it  probable  that  these  were 
written  and  copied  on  Egyptian  paper,  or  papyrus,  which 
wore  out  rapidly.     But  a  single  specimen  has  come  to  us. 


John  alludes  to  this  2  John,  12.  Jerome  speaks  of  an 
effort  to  restore  the  Bible  of  Csesarea  less  than  a  century 
after  its  collection. 

V.  The  persecution  of  the  early  Christiajis  extended 
to  their  books.  The  '■'■  iraditores"  saved  themselves 
by  2:iving  up  their  books. 

The  earliest  IST.  T.  manuscripts  belong  to  the  period 
of  Constantine.  Fifty  copies  were  made  on  fine  parch- 
ment. The  oldest  copies  which  are  preserved  differ  from 
one  another.  Some  of  these  variations  are  not^nim- 
portant.  In  many  cases  there  are  2,  3  or  4  alternatives. 
Scrivener  enumerates  not  less  than  120,000.  The  vast 
majority  of  this  number  relate  to  the  order  of  the  words 
in  a  sentence  ;  some,  to  the  change  of  a  letter  or  two — 
something  which  scarcely  affects  the  meaning  at  all. 
About  1600-2000  are  enumerated  where  there  is  doubt 
upon  the  true  reading — including  minor  cases.  In  the 
vast  majority  of  cases  the  true  reading  may  be  established 
by  consent  of  scholars. 

Tlie  0.  T.  has  great  advantage  in  this  matter,  as 
its  text  was  protected  by  uniform  tradition.  It  was 
tlie  business  of  the  scribes  to  get  the  exact  fac-simile. 
TheN.  T.  manuscripts  are  older  than  those  of  the  O.  T. 
Variations  are  of  course  corruptions.  The  classification 
of  the  sources  of  corruption  still  in  vogue  is  due  to 
Origen,  that  of  intentional  and  unintentional  errors. 
Tregelles  has  substitutions,  additions  and  omissions. 
Hammond  has  8  divisions  reducible  to  conscious  and 
unconscious.  Scrivener  makes  20  classes  by  breaking 
up  some  of  the  matter  into  detail.  Origen's  division  is 
good  as  anybody's  and  is  respectable  for  its  age. 

Intentional.  Among  the  causes  of  intentional  errors 
are,  1.  Supposed  corrections  in  orthography ;  altering 
words  to  save  Hebraisms;  to  solve  historical  difficulties. 
Only  a  few  manuscripts  have  escaped  change.  Exam- 
ples :  Mark  13:  23  has  an  additional  zeugma.  Matt. 
27  :  9.  This  is  not  in  Jeremiah  but  Zachariah  ;  the  ex- 
planation of  the  passage  in  Zachariali  is  based  on  one  in 
Jeremiah,  and  Matthew  quotes  the  latter. 

2.  The  next  source  of  intentional  error  is  the  attempt 
to  harmonize  the  different  gospels  with  the  epistles.  So 
also  in  quotations  from  the  O.  T. 


3.  Alteration  was  with  doctrinaV  intent,  either  in  sup- 
port of  ortliodox  views  or  opposing  them.  The  altera- 
tions in  support  of  heresy,  however,  are  not  important. 
Not  many  in  support  of  doctrines  elsewhere  taught. 
Ex.  I.  John  V,  7,  8.  The  charges  against  heretics  are  on 
minor  points,  and  relate  rather  to  the  history  of  the  canon 
88  a  whole.  While  it  is  true  that  most  corruptions  arose 
from  copying,  yet  any  intentional  alteration  to  introduce 
a  new  doctrine  would  be  absolutely  impossible.  If  copies 
had  b'^en  bought  up  and  large  numbers  altered,  such 
thii^gs  miglit  have  been  done.  Examples  of  errors ; 
Matt.  xix.  17,  cited  by  Scrivener,  has  two  reading;  one 
of  the  most  prominent  is  John  1.  18,  "  only  begotten 
Son,"  or  "  the  only  begotten  God,"  which  has  a  very 
gnostic  sound  ;   Acts  xvi.  7  ;  Acts  xx.  28. 

4.  Liturgical  altercations,  dividing  portions  for  read- 
ing in  the  churches,  as  lectionaries.  Passages  were  thus 
separated  from  their  context;  in  some  cases  the  intro- 
ductory words  would  be  harsh  and  needed  others  to  ex- 
plain them  ;  then  continuous  manuscripts  copied  from 
them.  e.  g.  Luke  ii.  41,  Mary  was  inserted  as  the  sub- 
ject;  Acts  iii.  11.  The  most  important  is  the  doxology 
of  the  Lord's  prayer,  which  according  to  tlie  best  author- 
ity, is  not  written  in  the  text.  Acts  viii.  37  ;  the  w^hole 
verse  is  considered  spurious  by  the  best  authorities. 
Probably  a  form  of  confession  common  in  baptismal  ser- 
vice. This  whole  class  arose  from  a  desire  to  improve 
the  text. 

Unintentional.  These  comprise,  1.  errors  of  the 
senses;  2.  errors  of  memory;  3.  errors  of  judgment.  1. 
Errors  of  the  eye  consisted  in  dropping  or  transposing 
letters,  repeating  or  catching  the  vvrong  word.  These 
manuscripts  were  written  without  division  of  words  and 
all  in  capital  letters.  Suppose  a  newspaper  to  be  written 
in  this  manner.  The  old  uncial  letters  were  very  similar 
in  some  cases,  e.  g.  I.  Tim.  iii.  16;  "  God  was  manifest 
in  the  flesh  "  is  liable  to  be  read,"  "  he  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh  ;  "  Mark  iv.  22. 

2.  Errors  of  the  ear.  No  doubt  many  MSS.  were 
originally  composed  from  dictation,  and  hence  arose  fre- 
quent errors. 


3.  Errors  of  the  memory.  Copjnsts  writitisf  either 
by  eye  or  ear  must  hold  the  words  in  the  memory,  under 
the  liability  to  sabstitnte  for  some  word  its  synonym  ; 
especially  prepositions  and  particles  might  easily  be  in- 
terchanged. The  great  mass  of  the  eiTors  arises  fron> 
this.  Also,  quoting  a  familiar  verse,  he  might  substitute 
a  parallel  tor  it. 

4.  Errors  of  judgment  without  bad  intention,  (a)  A 
large  number  arose  from  using  abbreviations,  e.  g.  I.  Tim. 
iv.  3.  The  oldest  and  best  manuscripts  have  frequent 
abbreviations,  (b)  Division  of  words,  e.  g.  Philippians 
i.  1.  The  identical  letters  may  be  differently  divided. 
(c)  Another  source  of  errors  of  judgment  was  maro^inal 
annotations  or  explanations.  These  crept  into  the  text 
at  times. 

Though  there  are  numerous  variations,  there  is  no 
reading  which  materially  affects  the  integrity  of  the  book 
or  the  doctrine;  important  texts  are  altered,  but  enough 
remains  to  fix  the  sense  in  every  case.  Thorough  \u- 
quiry  increases  the  evidence  for  the  truth.  That  this  is 
not  ihe  case  with  regard  to  profane  authors  is  shown  by 
Prof.  Morton.  This  proves  the  hand  of  God  in  the 
preservation  of  his  work.  Criticism  satisfactorily  an- 
swers the  question  as  to  what  the  words  of  the  N.  T. 
are.  These  corrections  are  not  equally  distributed  among 
the  books;  the  best  text  is  the  writings  of  John,  next 
Paul,  next  the  first  three  gospels,  next  the  catholic  epis- 
tles. Acts  and  Apocalypse  are  the  worst  text.  The  lat- 
ter is  accounted  for  by  the  discredit  it  once  suffered,  but 
we  are  not  certain  concerning  the  Acts. 

CHAPTER  II. 

MEANS  OF  RECOVERY  OF  THE  TRUE  TEXT. 

There  are  four  sources,  1.  manuscripts,  2.  quotations 
from  the  ancient  fathers,  3.  versions  or  translations,  4. 
conjectures.  These  last  must  be  resorted  to  even  in  the 
0.  Testament.  I^ot  so  necessary  in  the  iST.  T.  Reason- 
ing from  the  context,  which  has  an  important  place  in 
the  classics,  is  not  needed  where  there  is  choice  of  reading. 


I.  Manuscripts  are  the  fundamental  source.  No  read- 
ing is  to  be  accepted  vvliich  is  not  based  on  MS.  author- 
ity as  the  primary  basis.  The  earliest  Greek  MSS.  be- 
lo"ngtothe4th  century;  quotations  go  back  to  the  apostolic 
fathers  at  the  beginning  of  the  1st  century;  versions 
were  made  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second.  Of  course 
MSS.  are  the  main  dependence.  Scrivener  numbers 
1800 — 2000  MSS.  Their  number  has  doubled  since  this 
lecture  was  written.  Of  those  only  about  30  contain  the 
complete  N.  T.  About  20  date  from  the  4th,  5th  and  6t]i 
centuries,  30  from  the  7th,  8th  and  9th  ;  these  are  the 
Very  old  MSS.  The  mass  is  more  recent.  Greek  litera- 
ture does  not  afibrd  one-tenth  of  the  manuscripts  that 
the  N.  T.  does.  Tischendorf  makes  40  uncials  ;  Scrive- 
ner gives  623  cursires  (later  MSS.)  For  Acts  and  the 
catholic  epistles  there  are  10  old  MSS.  and  14  cursives; 
for  the  Pauline  epistles  15  uncials,  1  almost  entire,  7 
with  large  portions,  283  cursives  ;  Apocalypse,  5  uncials, 
105  cursives — much  less  than  the  other  books;  Gospels, 
three  or  four  times  as  many  as  Acts  and  the  Oath.  Epis- 
tles. Some  MSS.  are  bilingual,  being  written  in  Greek 
and  Latin. 

While  the  0.  T.  MSS.  are  nearly  all  of  equal  author- 
ity, those  of  the  N,  T.  are  of  individual  authority,  and 
therefore  widely  differ  in  value;  the  O.  T.  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  more  uniformity,  the  N.  T.  the  advantage  of 
age  in  the  MSS.  No  O.  T.  MS.  is  older  than  the  6th— 
perhaps  the  9th  century,  while  several  of  the  N.  T.  date 
from  the  4th. 

The  antiquity  of  a  manuscript  is  an  element  of  im- 
portance. Other  things  being  equal,  the  older  the  better. 
Yet  this  is  not  absolutely  so.  The  determination  of  the 
age  is  one  of  the  prime  objects.     The 

1st.  Criterion  is  the  material  on  which  it  is  written. 
The  oldest  are  on  parchment.  On  account  of  the 
expense  of  the  parchment,  the  early  Christians  used 
Egyptian  paper  down  to  the  time  of  Constantine  the 
G^-eat,  when  MSS.  came  to  us  in  the  best  shape.  Parch- 
ment is  of  two  kinds,  that  made  from  the  skin  of  young 
calves  ;  the  earliest  were  on  this  though  it  was  rough, 
e.  g.  Charta  Pergamena  of  the  king  of  Pergamus,  150 


B.  C.  But  the  oldest  N.T.  MS.  the  Siiuutic,is  on  vellum 
of  the  finest  antelope.  The  Vaticun  and  the  Alexan- 
drian are  on  beautiful  vellum.  I^hey  varj'  in  color ; 
there  are  some  purple  dyed  fragments  of  the  6th  century 
which  onl}'  the  microscope  can  distinguish  from  paper. 
Manuscripts  were  frequently  erased  by  the  monks  to 
get  paper  for  their  purposes,  but  the  erasure  was  never 
perfect,  and  they  were  written  either  across  the  lines  or 
between  the  lines.  Some  of  the  oldest  are  ixiUmpsests. 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  restore  the  original  inscrip- 
tion by  chemical  process,  erasing  the  new  with  prussiate 
of  potash.  Ancient  ink  had  no  metallic  base,  hence  it 
turned  red  and  faded.  The  pen  was  a  reed  if  the  mate- 
rial was  papyrus,  but  the  impression  on  the  parchment 
MSS.  shows  that  the  stylus  was  used  for  them.  Punc- 
tures show  that  needle  points  were  used  for  measuring 
columns  and  lines.  Besides  these,  paper  was  manufac- 
tured in  the  9th  century  as  appears  from  some  copies 
still  extant  at  St.  Petersburg.  Those  on  linen  paper 
were  subsequent  to  the  13th  century. 

2nd.  A  more  accurate  method  of  determining  an- 
tiquity is  by  the  character  in  which  they  are  written. 
The  uncial  letter  is  the  oldest.  The  IS".  T.  cursive  writ- 
ing does  not  appear  until  the  7tli  century,  and  in  the  10th 
it  supersedes  tlie  uncial,  at  which  time  illuminated  MSS. 
came  into  use,  and  from  which  time  they  usually  bear 
date.  Now  of  those  prior  to  the  9th  century  :  the  shape 
of  the  uncial  letter  gives  one  of  the  simplest  and  surest 
clews  to  the  age.  (Comparison  with  ancient  inscriptions 
on  stone,  coins,  papyri  of  Herculaneum.)  At  first  the 
letters  were  slightly  rounded  and  elegant;  later,  angular 
and  turreted.  (See  Scrivener's  larger  work.)  Only  two 
principles  need  to  be  remembered ;  first,  the  upright 
uncial  is  more  ancient  than  the  oblong  and  leaning; 
second,  the  simpler  the  style  the  older  the  probable  date. 

3d.  The  divisions  in  the  text.  The  ancient  MSS. 
were  written  without  division,  pointing,  accents  or  breath- 
ings ;  the  iota  subscript  or  ad-cript  had  become  obsolete, 
but  it  came  in  again  with  the  cursives.  Some  say  the 
breathings  and  accents  were  found  in  the  Alexandrian 
MSS.  at'first   hand,  but  the  oldest  are  without  addition 


8 

to  the  letters.  Criticism  has  the  right  to  discover  what 
are  the  letters.  There  is  evidence  of  punctuation  and 
perhaps  of  accents  having  been  known  to  the  ancients, 
but  they  were  not  popular.  The  first  break  was  made 
by  Euthalius  of  Alexandria  in  the  5th  century  ;  he 
divided  the  text  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles  into  lines  con- 
sisting of  a  clause  or  so  many  words  as  could  be  pronounced 
together.  This  was  a  great  relief  to  the  reader.  Many 
copies  thus  made,  but  few  are  now  extant.  But  this 
method  occasioned  a  waste  of  space,  you  see;  so  they 
began  to  write  continuously  and  to  separate  these  axiyoc 
by  points.  Gradually  other  points  came  into  use,  but 
the  text  was  not  punctuated  as  we  have  it  until  after  the 
invention  of  printing.  This  same  Euthalius  first  divided 
into  paragraphs  with  marginal  divisions,  so  that  the 
whole  could  be  read  in  a  year.  The  Vatican  MS.,  how- 
ever, has  divisions  which  are  said  to  be  older  than  those 
of  Euthalius. 

In  the  Gospels  a  division  into  chapters  is  ascribed  to 
the  2nd  century,  but  the  oldest  MSS.  do  not  have  them. 
More  important,  however,  are  the  sections  made  A.  D. 
220  by  Ammonius,  adopted  and  revised  by  Eusebius  ; 
they  belong  only  to  the  Gospels,  and  were  used  for  the 
8ake  of  harmony.  They  were  marked  by  numbers  re- 
ferring to  parallel  passages.  In  addition  to  these  there 
are  the  Eusebian  Canons  of  the  Gospels,  ten  in  number, 
referring  to  the  same  but  giving  a  list  of  parallel  pass- 
ages ;  1165  of  these  passages  in  the  Gospels — usually  put 
in  colored  ink.  There  were  other  divisions  known  to 
the  fathers,  but  they  are  not  uniform. 

Cardinal  Hugo,  making  a  concordance  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate  in  1262,  had  to  make  divisions  into  chapters  in 
the  Vulgate.  These  were  not  adopted  till  the  15th  cen- 
tury. Hence  come  our  divisions.  Division  into  verses 
is  entirely  modern,  first  appearing  in  the  edition  of  Robert 
Stephens  at  Geneva  in  1551.  This  is  said  to  have  been 
made  while  on  a  journey  frm  Paris  to  Lyons.  Though 
they  are  of  no  exegetical  importance,  they  have  had  a 
wonderful  influence  upon  us,  and  we  always  picture  the 
Bible  under  this  torm. 


The  superscriptions  or  titles  of  the  books  do  not  be- 
long to  the  MSS.,  but  were  evident!}'  caused  from  the 
additions  in  different  MSS.  Paul  would  not  mark  an 
epistle  I.,  till  he  had  written  a  second.  The  subscrip- 
tions are  also  later  ;  in  some  cases  erroneous.  Xothing 
but  the  letters  of  the  Greek  text  are  of  binding  authority. 
(See  Scrivener.) 

4th.  The  number  of  columns  on  a  page.  The  most 
ancient  in  the  form  of  rolls  are  now  lost,  in  which  the 
writing  was  in  parallel  columns.  When  the  volume  was 
adopted  this  columnar  arrangement  was  naturally  pre- 
served, especially  on  a  large  page.  A  few  MSS.  are  in 
large  folio  ;  most  of  them,  however,  are  small,  some  even 
8  vo.  The  sheets  of  papyrus  were  4  or  5  inches  long, 
and  fastened  together  at  the  side  to  make  a  roll.  The 
Sinaitic  MS.  has  4,  the  Vatican  3  columns. 

5th.  The  text.  The  antiquity  of  the  MSS.  and  the 
antiquity  of  the  text  are  nut  necessarily  the  same  thing. 
We  may  have  a  copy  of  a  copy.  There  are  other  cri- 
terions  besides  the  age  of  the  MSS.  ;  a  distinction  is  to 
be  made  between  the  age  of  the  MSS.  and  additions  made 
at  2nd,  3d,  4th  and  even  5th  and  6th  hand.  These  em- 
endations to  which  nearly  all  have  been  subjected  are 
known  by  the  difference  in  the  ink  and  the  hand.  Tisch- 
endorf  says  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  has  gone  through  6 
hands.     Now  a  MS.  must  be  older  than  its  corrections. 

List  of  MSS.  : 
K.  Sinaitic  Gospels  Paul's  Epis. 

A.Alexandrian     L.Regius  D.  Claromontauus 

B.  Vatican  %.  Xifriensis  E.  Sangermanensis 

C.  Ephraemi  J.  Sangallensis      F.  Augiensis 

D.  Cambridge        Acts,  Cath.  Epis.  It.  Boernesiauus 

E.  Laudianus  Apocalypse 

Cursives.  B 

33  of  Gospels,  13  Acts,  17  Paul         Porphyrianus 

69  "         31       "     37 

Apoc.  14. 

The  same  letters  do  not  always  refer  to  the  same 
MSS.;  the  uncials  are  known  by  capital  letters,  cursives 
by  figures,  versions  by  small  letters. 


10 

Tlie  Codex  Alexandrinus  was  given  by  Cyril  Lycaris  to 
Charles  I.  in  1628,  and  was  placed  in  the  British  Museum 
at  its  founding  in  1753.  It  contains  the  whole  N".  T.  ex- 
cept a  few  passages  :  begins  with  Matt.  xxv.  6,  and  wants 
part  of  three  chapters  in  John,  viz.  :  vii.  50 — vii.  52  ; 
lacks  these  leaves  of  being  complete  in  both  Old  and 
New  T.  It  contains  also  the  epistles  of  Clement  of  Rome. 
Four  quarto  volumes  about  13  inches  high  ;  large  initial 
letters  in  colored  inks.  It  is  the  earliest  MS.  with  Am- 
monian  sections  and  Eusel)ian  canons  complete  ;  and  is 
written  in  beautiful  upright  letters  without  division  of 
words.  It  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  copied  in 
Alexandria  earlier  tlian  the  5th  century.  It  has  inde- 
pendent value  because  itdifters  from  the  Vatican  and  the 
Sinaitic  MS.  The  st3'le  of  writing  and  letters  is  the  first 
aid  in  determining  the  age.  The  Eusebian  canons  indi- 
cate A.  D.  458.  The  best  judges  place  it  early  in  the 
5th  century.  Of  course  where  it  agrees  with  «  O''  B  the 
evidence  is  peculiarly  strong;  the  combination  of  awith 
the  oldest  is  the  liighest  authority.  The  ink  is  worn 
away  in  many  places,  and  it  is  never  touched  except  for 
good  purpose.  In  proof  of  its  Egyptian  origin  are  the 
ornamental  baskets  of  fruits  appended.  These  MSS.  are 
edited  in  Greek,  the- errors  copied,  and  thus  the  whole 
is  given  to  scholars. 

B.  Codex  Vatican  us  gives  the  O.  T.  with  certain 
breaks  and  the  N.  T.  with  several  exceptions,  whi^h  are 
added  in  a  different  hand  and  at  a  more  recent  time.  It 
is  on  delicate  thin  vellum,  quarto  s-hape,  three  columns 
to  the  page.  It  wants  the  capitals  that  are  frequent  in 
the  Alexandrian.  The  Aramonian  sections  and  Eusebian 
canons  are  wanting.  In  many  places  it  is  retraced  and 
retouched  by  a  hand  in  the  8th  century.  The  character 
points  to  the  4th  century.  Even  the  small  letters 
crowded  in  at  the  end  of  the  line  indicate  the  4th  cen- 
tury. A  few  accents  are  inserted  by  a  second  hand. 
Dates  from  about  the  close  of  the  2nd  century.  It  has 
been  jealously  guarded  by  the  Pope.  In  the  18th  cen- 
tury some  collations  of  its  readings  were  made,  but  they 
were  extremely  inaccurate.  No  access  to  its  was  per- 
mitted for  a  hundred  years.     During  the  French   Revo- 


11 


hition  it  was  in  Paris  for  a  while.  In  1843  Tischendorf 
was  allowed  to  examine  it  for  6  hours  ;  in  '45  Tregelles 
was  allowed  to  see  it  but  not  to  transcribe  any  part  of  it. 
In  1866,  after  Tisehendorf's  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic,  the 
Pope  being  delighted,  allowed  him  for  a  while  to  see  this 
manuscript.  But  Tischendorf  was  caught  copying  16 
pages  of  it,  and  he  was  limited  to  3  hours  a  day  for  two 
weeks  to  consult  certain  passages  without  pencil  or  paper, 
with  two  witnesses  to  interrupt  him.  The  excuse  they 
made  was  that  they  wanted  to  edit  the  MS.  themselves. 
Part  of  it  has  been  published,  but  the  Romans  do  not 
understand  it,  and  their  work  is  not  ot  much  value. 
Quite  lately  access  to  it  has  been  obtained  and  Tischen- 
dorf based  his  edition  upon  it.  The  difficulty  is  to  de- 
termine w^hat  are  the  readiijg  and  what  are  the  re-touch- 
ings.  There  is  difference  of  opinion  as  to  its  value  ;  it 
is  remarkable  for  its  omission  of  words;  some  scribes 
add,  some  drop;  where  the  tendency  is  to  omit  its  read- 
ing is  more  probable.  This  text  standing  alone  is  the 
strongest,  and  with  x  constitutes  the  best  authority. 

C,  Codex  Ephraemi  is  a  rescript  palimpsest  whicli 
once  belonged  to  the  Medici  family.  It  contains  parts  of 
the  Septuagint,  and  the  whole  of  the  IST.  T.  is  represented 
in  a  fragmentary  way — altogether  f  N.  T.  given.  It  has 
the  interpunction,  Ammonian  sections — is  now  in  Paris 
— and  belongs  to  the  5th  century.  Chemical  restoration 
was  tried  on'it  in  1834,  but  it  was  injured  by  the  process. 
It  has  capitals  like  the  Alexandrian,  but  the  vellum  is 
not  so  tine.  It  has  had  three  corrections,  C*,  C**  and 
C***,  from  the  6th— 9th  centuries. 

D.  Codex  BezfB  is  at  the  library  of  Cambridge — 
Gospels  and  Acts — with  stichoi.  It  was  found  by  Beza. 
It  is  the  oldest  version  presenting  large  letters  after  a 
pause  in  the  middle  of  the  lines,  showing  a  tendency  to 
capitals.  It  has  had  8  or  9  correctors,  and  is  celebrated 
for  its  various  readings  ;  in  600  places  in  the  book  of 
Acts  it  differs  from  the  others ;  e.  g.  Act  viii.  24  has, 
"  Simon  Magus  ceased  not  to  shed  bitter  tears;"  Luke 
vi.  4,  "  he  beheld  a  certain  man  working  on  the  Sab- 
bath," is  introduced  as  the  words  of  Christ ;  "  Blessed 
art  thou  if  thou  knowest  what  thou  doest,  and  cursed  if 


12 

not."  It  date?  probably  from  the  6th  century.  Many 
important  MSS.  lie  hidden  in  the  convents  of  Europe. 
(See  Tischendorf  s  Travels  in  the  East.) 

X,  Codex  Sinaiticus.  In  1844  Tischendorf  visited 
the  convent  of  St.  Catharine  on  Mt.  Sinai  and  found  an 
ancient  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  but  the  monks  would  not 
give  it  up.  He  made  another  visit  in  1859  but  could  not 
find  the  copy;  when  about  to  leave  the  Superior  pre- 
sented him  another  MS.  This  Tischendorf  pronounced 
the  very  oldest  Greek  MS.  It  is  on  antelope  skin  and 
is  now  in  the  library  at  St.  Petersburg.  Two  editions 
have  been  made,  one  very  expensive,  having  50  or  60 
facsimile  pages,  plates  and  types  being  cut  to  produce 
them.  It  characteristically  agrees  with  the  Vatican 
MS.,  often  with  A.  The  letters  are  slight!}-  rounded,  in 
the  same  style  as  the  papyri  MSS.,  no  capitals,  no  breath- 
ings, many  pages  not  even  diacritically  pointed.  It  has 
4  columns  on  a  page,  the  Vatican,  3.  Hebrews  is  incor- 
porated with  the  Epistles  but  comes  atter  2nd  Thessa- 
lonians,  indicating  that  it  was  made  before  the  common 
order  was  fixed.  It  gives  the  Greek  text  ot  the  epistle 
of  Barnabas,  furnishing  evidence  to  the  canon  not  found 
elsewhere.  The  text  indicates  a  very  early  date;  it  has 
the  Eusebian  divisions  introduced  by  a  second  hand; 
Barnabas  and  Pastor  are  admitted  which  were  condemned 
364.  Scrivener  and  Tregelles  say  there  is  no  use  in 
drawing  a  distinction  between  the  Vatican  and  n,  they 
are  so  nearly  of  the  same  age. 

L.  (Gospels)  Regius  is  a  quarto  in  the  Paris  library — 
published  by  Tisch.  in  1846.  It  is  one  of  the  principal 
MSS. — has  breathings,  apostrophe,  capitals  and  titles, 
resembles  B  and  Origen's  quotations,  and  abounds  in 
^lexandrianisms. 

R.  (Gospels)  JSTitriensis  was  brought  to  England  from 
a  convent  in  the  Nitrian  desert  north  of  Cairo.  It  is  a 
Palimpsest.  In  the  same  volume  are  bound  4,000  lines 
of  the  Iliad. 

J  (Gospels)  Sangallensis  was  named  from  St.  Gall  in 
Switzerland  where  it  was  made  about  the  9th  century; 
it  is  complete  except  a  few  verses  of  John.  Resembles  G. 
of  Paul's  Epis. 


13 

E.  (Acts  and  Cath.  Epis.)  Lauclianus,  presenter]  hy 
Archbisliop  Laud  in  1636,  is  the  most  remarkable  of  tliis 
class.  It  is  a  Latinized  version  of  the  6th  or  7th  cen- 
tury ;  interesting  because  used  by  venerable  Bede.  This 
is  the  first  manuscript  witness  to  prove  baptism  by 
Philip  in  Acts. 

D.  (Paul's  Epis.)  Claromontanus,  the  most  important 
of  Paul's  Epis.,  was  found  at  Clermont,  and  is  inferior 
to  N,  A,  B,  and  C.  It  is  on  vellum — edited  by  Tischen- 
dorf  in  Paris,  1852.  It  was  found  by  Beza  ;  stolen  sheets 
were  sold  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  but  were  restored  when 
the  theft  was  discovered.  It  was  stichoi  added  in  the  5th 
or  6th  century.  These  were  first  applied  in  458.  It  has 
initial  letters  and  the  African  type  of  Old  Latin. 

■^^(Paurs  Epis.)  Sangermanensis  was  found  in  an 
abbey  near  Paris  and  removed  to  St.  Petersburg  at  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century.  Believed  to  be  a  re- 
markable copy  of  the  preceding — has  no  independent 
value. 

"F-.  (Paul's  Epis.)  Augiensis  is  named  from  Augia,  a 
convent  on  an  island  in  Lake  Constance.  Latin  and 
Greek — 9th  century. 

G.  (Paul's  Epis.)  Boernerianus  is  named  from  a 
German  professor  at  Leipsic.  This  exacth'  resembles  J 
of  the  Gospels,  and  by  some  is  believed  to  be  part  of  the 
same  MS. 

The  Cursives  are  often  collated  from  old  MSS.,  and 
may  have  almost  tlie  autliority  of  an  uncial,  as  they  may 
be  transcribed  from  an  cdd  uncial. 

IL  Quotations.  The  quotations  of  the  early  fathers 
are  prior  to  the  4th  century  and  older  than  the  MSS. 
themselves.  Besides  we  have  early  versions  older  than 
the  MSS.  Here,  then,  is  a  means  of  checking  and  com- 
pearing not  known  in  other  departments  of  criticism.  Yet 
all  this  comparison  is  secondary  to  the  reading  of  the 
MS.  itself  in  authority.  It  is  a  canon  of  criticism  that 
no  reading  is  to  be  absolutely  adopted  without  MS, 
authority.  Quotations  bear  testimony  in  two  w^ays  :  1. 
They  witness  the  reading  of  MSS.  now  lost.  2.  Per- 
haps their  chief  value  is  to  furnish  the  mode  of  deter- 
mining and  classifying  MSS.     Of  course  there  is  a  great 


14 

difference  between  writers.  The  Latin  fatliers  are 
secondary  to  the  Latin  version.  The  Greeks  quote  their 
own  language,  tlie  Latin  fathers,  the  Vulgate.  The 
antiquit}-  has  much  to  do  witli  the  authority.  If  every 
MS.  had  been  burned  we  could  recover  the  whole  N.  T. 
from  tie  quotations — the  thing  has  been  done— an  edition 
thus  acquired  has  actually  been  printed.  ]SIotso  exactly 
with  the  0.  T.  There  are  certain  drawbacks  in  quota- 
tion :  1.  There  exists  no  standard  text ;  each  quotation 
is  only  a  witness  from  the  MS.  or  family  of  MSS.  with 
which  the  writer  was  familiar.  2.  The  form  of  the 
quotation  itself  has  been  in  many  cases  itself  altered  in 
the  transmission  of  the  quotation.  The  copyist  of  a 
father  would  try  to  make  him  conform  to  another. 
They  have  not  been  so  carefully  preserved  as  the  N.  T, 
text,  and  some  of  the  writings  are  only  fragmentary.  3. 
The  same  writer  often  quotes  the  same  text  differently  — 
quotes  from  the  MS.  f  e  happens  to  be  using  at  the  time. 
4.  The  MSS.  which  bring  to  us  the  quotations  of  the  fathers 
are  none  of  them  as  old  as  the  N.  T.  MSS.  themselves. 
The  Greek  IST.  T.  MSS.  have  the  advantage  in  antiquity. 
No  MS.  of  a  father  has  come  down  to  us  as  old  as  the 
4th  century.  Therefore  they  are  secondary.  5.  Dis- 
tinctions between  the  classes  of  writings;  the  lowest 
authority  is  given  to  the  controversial  writers.  To  make 
prominent  a  single  point  the  father  might  not  make  an 
accurate  and  complete  quotation.  The  second  rank  be- 
longs to  devotional  writers  ;  as  their  purpose  did  not  re- 
quiie  accuracy'  they  quote  from  memory.  The  third  class 
consists  of  the  exegetical  writers.  Here  accuracy  is  to 
be  expected.  Theoldest  father  of  this  description  and 
the  most  copious  by  far  is  Origen.  The  leading  critics 
of  the  time  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  accuracy  of 
the  text  of  each  father,  and  there  is  a  century  of  work  to 
be  done  in  the  establishment  of  the  text  of  these  fathers. 
N,  T.  criticism  is  a  new  science  really,  the  work  has  only 
begun.     (See  Tregelles.) 

III.  Versions  or  translations.  Two  obvious  rules 
cut  off  a  large  number  of  versions.  1.  They  must  be 
immediate.  2.  They  must  be  ancient.  By  immediate 
is  meant  that  they  are  derived  directly  from    the   Greek 


15 

text.  This  vastly  reduces  the  number  of  versions  uvail- 
uble  ;  only  4  of  the  0.  T.  are  considered  valuable.  TIjey 
must  be  ancient;  this  cuts  off"  all  after  the  6th  century. 
The  version  must  be  older  than  the  Masoretic  text.  A 
version  determines  the  text  of  the  original.  (Scrivener's 
6th  Lecture)  The  Syriac  version,  the  oldest,  was  made 
in  the  2nd  century.  The  chief  service  of  Bontly  was  the 
restoration  of  the  Latin  V^ulgate;  by  restoring  it  ho 
proved  its  conformity  to  the  oldest  Greek  text  in  a  mul- 
titude of  cases. 

Further,  tliis  evidence  from  versions  is  not  seriously 
impaired  by  the  fact  that  their  MSS.  are  none  of  them 
old  as  the  Greek  text.  They  are  an  independent  line  of 
witnesses.  The  Greek  Testament  has  come  down  to  us 
from  quotations,  versions,  manuscripts;  thus  the  text  of 
tiie  N.  T.  is  better  than  that  of  any  other  book. 

Versions  have  three  uses  :  1.  Their  critical  use,  which 
has  been  already  alluded  to  ;  2.  Their  exegetical  use  you 
can  easily  imagine;  they  are  of  immense  importance;  they 
give  not  only  the  opinion  of  an  individual,  but  tljey  give 
the  decision  of  the  whole  branch  of  the  church  which 
used  the  version, — the  Peshito,  the  opinion  of  the  Syriac 
church,  the  Vulirate  of  the  Latin, — forming  tlie  basis  of 
doctrine.  3.  Their  philological  value.  They  are  the 
basis  of  comparing  languages  the  literary  monuments 
of  which  are  extremely  scarce.  With  regard  to  their 
exegerical  value.  In  private  use  of  the  Bible,  reading  it 
in  languages  other  than  your  own  is  one  of  the  most  valuable 
habits.  AH  eminent  scholars  do  so.  We  are  so  familiar 
with  the  English  words  that  the  ear  is  hardened  to  them. 
The  freshness  only  comes  out  when  reading  in  another 
language;  each  new  idiom  brings  the  text  home  to  the 
njind  in  fresh  power  and  suggests  much.  No  commentary 
after  a  grammar  and  a  dictionary  is  so  suggestive  as  arevision. 
Have  a  polyglot  Bible  on  your  table  ;  thus  the  habit  of 
reading  in  all  these  languages  is  easily  established. 

The  history  of  these  versions  is  a  very  interesting 
chapter  in  early  church  history.  They  were  made  to 
supply  the  wants  of  the  churches  already  established. 
Greek  was  so  generally  spoken,  especially  in  the  cities, 
that  wherever  a  man  could  read   he   could   read   Greek. 


16 

The  demand  for  translations  was  not  immediate  and  they 
were  only  in  the  hands  of  scholars  ;  the  Greek  language 
was  sufficient  at  first  for  the  established  church.  Very 
soon,  however,  translations  were  required,  and  this  ac- 
counts for  the  antiquity  of  those  versions  which  became 
the  standards.  Thus  the  translation  of  the  Bible  may 
be  taken  as  a  record  of  the  history  of  each  church. 
There  was  a  marked  difference  between  the  church  of 
the  East  and  that  of  the  West  in  this  respect.  In  the 
west  the  wide  use  of  the  Latin  made  one  translation 
enough,  which  became  a  strong  bond  of  union  between 
the  Latin  portions  of  the  church.  Western  unity  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  Latin  Bible.  In  the  east,  on  the  other 
hand,  many  versions  arose,  and  each  one  became  a  centre 
of  a  separate  existence. 

1.  The  Syriac  Peshito.  The  name  means  simple,  de- 
noting the  character  of  the  translation.  It  is  a  pure, 
simple  rendering  of  the  Greek.  The  date  is  in  dispute; 
church  scholars  put  it  at  the  end  of  the  2nd  century  or 
beginning  of  the  3d.  It  was  made  at  6dessa,  which  was 
for  many  years  the  chief  seat  of  oriental  learning,  and 
especially  celebrated  for  its  theological  school.  In  the 
middle  of  the  5th  century  they  took  part  in  the  Nestorian 
controversy.  The  Peshito  covers  the  0.  T.  as  well  as 
the  N.  T.,  and  is  immediate  in  both  (See  Smith's  Diet.;) 
the  translation  is  very  exact,  adopting  some  Greek  ex- 
pressions and  Latin  forms.  Ephraim  wrote  a  commen- 
tary on  it  in  the  4th  centur3^  The  canon  of  the  Peshito 
is  ot  great  importance,  and  its  value  is  enhanced  by  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  translation  of  the  old  books;  it  lacks 
only  II.  Peter,  II.  and  III.  John  and  Jude,  the  tour 
minor  catholic  epistles,  and  probably  Revelation  ;  also  I. 
John  V.  7,  and  the  account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adul- 
tery. Its  oldest  MS.  dates  from  the  6th  century;  it 
was  not  known  in  Europe  till  1552.  This  is  the  great 
Syriac  version. 

2.  The  Curatonian  is  another  Syriac  version  which 
was  brought  from  the  Nitrian  desert  in  1847.  It  is 
named  from  the  publisher  of  the  MS. ;  it  is  not  a 
church  version  and  hence  not  authoritative  ;  it  is  assigned 
to  the  5th  century,  and  agrees  mainly  with  D.     Contains 


^^  / 


J 


HUUAAMt    r^  II 


fc-- 


/      '' 


J 

'Am,  JT 


/i 


Myl'U^^^J  • 


^U[ 


^^^Uwii.^ 


o    ^ 


17 

Matt.,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  except  4  verses  which  have 
been  lost. 

3.  Another  version  known  for  a  good  deal  longer 
time  is  the  Harclean  of  the  6th  century — 508  — for  a 
Monophysite  bishop  named  Philoxiana — by  Polycarp  ; 
revised  100  years  after  by  Bishop  Harcla.  The  transla- 
tion is  slavishly  literal.  The  translators  had  the  aid  of 
two  valuable  Greek  MSS.,  which  are  not  extant,  and  pre- 
served the  various  i^eadings  on  the  margin. 

4.  The  version  in  the  Aramaic  Syriac  belongs  to  the 
southern  part  of  Palestine,  and  was  made  shortly  before 
the  Mohammedan  invasion.  Not  much  use  was  made  ot 
it;  the  Septuagint  was  used  in  parts  of  Palestine  instead 
of  the  Hebrew,  the  Greek  had  become  so  popular.  It  is 
the  only  MS.  of  the  lltii  century  made  immediately 
from  the  Greek. 

5.  Egyptian  versions  are  secondary  in  rank.  Chris- 
tianity arose  is  Egypt  with  the  decay  of  Greek  influence, 
after  the  fall  of  the  Ptolemies  or  Greek  kings.  Where 
the  Greeks  were  not  so  numerous  Christianity  effected  a 
foothold  among  the  natives  ;  by  the  second  century  there 
was  an  important  church,  and  by  the  third  it  had 
become  very  numerous.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  coun- 
try which  translated  the  O.  T.  into  the  Greek,  should,  a 
few  centuries  later,  need  a  translation  out  of  the  Greek 
into  the  vernacular.  The  word  Coptic  is  of  unknown 
derivation — some  suppose  it  to  be  a  corruption  of  Aigiqj- 
tos.  At  the  Mohammedan  Invasion  there  w-ere  30,000 
Christian  families  using  this  language  of  the  Monophy- 
site sect.  There  are  two  dialects  of  the  Coptic,  and  each 
had  a  translation  ;  the  Thebaic  is  fragmentary  ;  the 
Memphitic  is  the  dialect  of  Lower  Egypt.  Very  few  of 
these  MSS.  are  older  than  the  10th  century.  They  are 
both  regarded  as  good  collateral  authority  for  the  2d 
and  3d  centuries.  The  Memphitic  favors  n  and  B  ;  the 
other  the  Latin.  Fragments  of  a  3d  Coptic  were  found 
in  eastern  Egypt. 

6.  Following  the  proo;ress  of  Christianity,  the 
Ethiopic  versions  are  next.  The  N.  T.  is  probably  im- 
j-nediate  in  this  dialect.  The  language  has  long  since 
ceased  to   be  spoken  ;  it  is   related  to  the  Arabic.     A 


18 

literature  is  still  written  in  it,  and  the  Bible  to  this  day 
is  read  in  it,  thongh  the  people  do  not  understand  it. 
This  is  in  Abyssinia.  An  important  version  in  criticism 
was  the  church  version  of  that  region — probably  of  the 
4th  century. 

7.  The  Armenian  version.  Armenia  was  the  iirst 
countrj'  where  the  aristocracy  as  well  as  the  people  era- 
braced  Christianity.  The  date  'of  the  version  is  411. 
Though  Arian,  the  church  used  the  language  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  5th  century,  wlien  a  new  alphabet  was  in- 
vented.    This  is  immediate  from  the  N.  T. 

8.  The  Georgian  version  dates  from  about  the  6th 
century.  "  Syrians,  Egyptians,  Ethiopians,  and  the  thou- 
sand other  nations  have  learnefl  the  Gospel  in  their  own 
language." — Chrysostom.  "  At  that  time  the  Gospel 
had  penetrated  all  nations." — Eusebius. 

9.  At  the  beginning  of  the  7tb  century  tlie  churches 
gave  way  to  Mohammedanism.  Syria  and  Egypt  lost 
their  mother  tongue,  which  gave  place  to  the  rich  and 
flexible  language  of  the  stronger  race.  Most  of  them 
have  Arabic  translations.  In  other  cases  versions  were 
made  for  churches  already  established  ;  one  was  made  in 
Spain  in  the  8th  centur\. 

10  Persian  version.  Mohammedan  energy  gave  rise 
to  a  flourishing  literature  in  Persia  while  the  other  na- 
tions were  at  their  lowest  ebb.  In  this  revival  of  litera- 
ture the  church  jiarticipated,  however,  and  translations 
were  made — not  all  immediate — some  from  the  Peshito. 

The  Fathers  mention  other  versions  but  they  are  now- 
lost. 

Latin  or  Western  Versions. 

Tbe  Vulgate  is  not  the  first,  but  the  whole  history  of 
the  ante-Vulgate  versions  is  now  unknown.  When  the 
church  was  first  growing  in  the  west  a  version  was  much 
needed.  The  Greek  was  assiduously  cultivated,  but  at 
the  same  time  a  vernacular  version  was  needed.  Ter- 
tullian,  in  the  2d  century,  refers  to  one  already  extant. 
Augustine  says,  "  In  the  early  ages  any  one  who  pos- 
sessed a  Greek  MS.  felt  qualified  to  become  an  inter- 
preter."   Jerome  says  there  were  "  almost  as  many  copies 


19 

as  MSS,"  This  is  the  first  information  we  have  of  the 
existence  of  more  than  one  of  these  Latin  versions. 
Examination  proves  them  to  have  had  a  common  origin. 
They  are  in  character  literal,  rude,  and  a[)pear  to  he  the 
woik  of  half-educated  men.  8o:ne  of  the  vindicators  of 
the  Vulgate  claim  that  that  translation  was  made  by  an 
apostle.  These  versions  were  brought  to  the  use  of  the 
church  by  Lachmann,  who  is  still  considered  high  author- 
ity. The  best  and  most  used  uf  these  is  the  Itala.  But 
what  does  this  mean  ?  Augustine  says,  "  Among  the 
translations  made  it  is  said  the  Itala  is  to,  be  preferred." 
The  name  is  uncertain  ;  Augustine  writes  from  north 
Africa  ;  this  name  occurs  only  in  this  one  place,  and 
seems  to  designate  one  among  man}'.  Bentley  sug- 
gested that  Itala  should  be  ilia,  that  one  ;  others  say  he 
referred  to  the  Vulgate  ;  but  the  common  opinion  is  that 
he  had  in  view  a  distinct  version,  so  called  because  made 
in  Italy. 
Latin  Versions — 

a.  Vercellensis,  4th  century,  at  Vercelli. 

b.  Veronensis,  4th  or  5th  century,  at  Verona. 

c.  Colbert,  15th  century,  at . 

e.  Palatinus,  4th  or  5th  century,  at  Vienna, 
ii'.  ff.  ?.   Corbiensis,  at  the  Abbey  of  Corbey. 
Thirty-two  in  all. 

Vulgate   MSS. — Am.    Amiatinus — Florence,    A.    D. 
541. 
fu    or    ful.      Fuldensis,    Abbey    of 
Fulda,  A.  D.  541. 

harl,  Harleian, ,  7th  century. 

These  are  of  the  first  order  of  antiquity,  as  they  are 
older  than  the  oldest  Greek  MSS.,  and  so  are  to  be 
classed  with  the  Syriac.  A,  b,  etc.,  are  of  the  primitive 
African  form.  Some  others  represent  tlie  Italian  recen- 
sions. These  were  first  introduced  by  Lachmann.  In 
the  second  half  of  the  4th  century  we  have  in  Jerome 
better  evidence.  lie  had  exhausted  the  resources  of 
knowledge  in  the  school  of  the  west ;  he  then  went  east 
and  was  a  monk  at  Bethlehem  20  years.  He  began  the 
N.  T.  323A.  D. ;  his  work  was  very  independent  and 
substantially  new  ;  the  O.  T.  he  translated   de  novo  from 


Uit. 


20 

the  Hebrew.  But  there  was  a  prejudice  against  innova- 
tion, and  the  version  could  not  be  introduced  as  exclu- 
sive until  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great,  600  A.  D.,  200 
years  after  its  ])roduction,  when  it  was  forced  on  the 
church;  oven  then  it  did  not  entirely  supersede  the 
other.  For  200  years  the  effort  of  the  church  was  to 
reconcile  the  prejudice  against  it;  to  show  that  they 
were  substantially  the  same  two  were  often  written  in 
the  same  MS. 

It  was  a  difficult  task  to  restore  the  original  ;  before 
the  invention  of  printing  atieni})ts  were  made  to  secure 
a  uniform  text;  the  most  remarkable  were  the  labors  of 
Alcuin  in  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  and  Lanfranc,  of 
Canterbury,  1089  A.  D.  The  invention  of  printing  ag- 
gravated the'  evil.  The  Yulgate  was  the  first  book 
printed.  In  1546  the  Council  of  Trent  issued  the  fa- 
mous decree  that  the  Vulgate  should  be  used  for  all 
church  purposes.  The  practical  effect  has  been  to  place 
the  version  side  by  side  with  the  original,  and  really  to 
make  it  supersede  the  original.  No  two  editions  of  the 
Vulgate  were  exactly  alike.  In  1590  Pope  Sixtus  Y. 
prepared  an  edition,  and  in  a  bull  commanded  it  to  be 
used  as  the  true  text.  Before  200  copies  were  issued  it 
was  found  to  be  full  of  mistakes,  when  it  was  recalled 
and  destroyed.  The  Papal  infallibility  was  preserved 
by  referring  all  mistakes  to  the  printer.  The  MSS.  of 
the  Vulgate  exceed  all  others  m  number,  not  excepting 
the  Greek  Testament.  Bentley,  the  great  English 
scholar,  made  the  restoration  of  the  V.  the  work  of  his 
life.  Since  his  day  are  Lachmann  and  Tregelles.  The 
great  V.  MS.  is  the  Amiatinus  ;  it  contains  almost  per- 
fect the  whole  Bible;  it  has  been  published  entire  by 
Tischendorf.  Tregelles  cites  only  6  MSS.  of  the  V.; 
Tischendorf  many  more.  Editions  of  the  Vulgate  are 
cheap  and  convenient. 

Northern  Versions, 

The  Gothic,  made  by  Ulfilas,  in  the  middle  of  the 
4th  century,  contains  the  Gospels,  parts  of  the  Epistles, 
parts  of  the  0.  T.,  as  now  extant.  Ulfilas'  parents  were 
of  Cappadocia,  and  were  carried  off  by  the  Goths.     They 


M 


21 

became  teachers  of  Christianity  ;  by  the  end  of  the  4th 
century  a  church  was  established  at  Constantinople,  and 
Ulfilas  became  their  bishop.  He  invented  an  alphabet, 
and  translated  the  Bible  for  them.  The  language  died 
out  about  the  9th  century.  At  the  end  of  the  16th  the 
MS.  was  found.  This  is  of  high  philological  interest,  as 
it  is  the  only  ancient  monument  of  the  family  of  lan- 
guages which  it  represents — the  Germanic.  It  throws 
light  on  the  formation  of  our  own  language. 

The  Slavonic  people  received  their  religion  from  the 
Greeks  in  the  9th  century. 

The  history  of  the  Bible  is  the  history  of  civilization, 
of  the  church,  of  language.  By  the  middle  of  the  15th 
century  there  were  Bibles  translated  in  France,  Italy, 
England  and  Germany. 

CHAPTER  III. 

History  of  the  Printed  Text. 

An  eftbrt  to  procure  the  pure  Greek  text  was  made 
after  the  art  of  printing  had  taken  some  start.  The  first 
editions  of  the  N.  T.  are  not  really  critical  editions. 
There  were  three  stages  in  the  publication.  1st.  The 
\4iiiiitm-pnnceps  was  usually  taken  from  a  single  MS.;  2d. 
tlie  formation  of  the  textusreceptus  ;  3d.  the  truly  critical 
stage  founded  on  the  materials  already  gathered.  It 
gives  the  authorities  and  exhibits  the  evidence  for  each 
reading.  The  first  portions  of  the  Greek  Testament 
ever  printed  were  the  .songs  of  Mary  and  Zacharias. 
Luke  i.  42-56 — at  Venice  1486;  next  the  first  six  chap- 
ters of  the  gospel  of  John  in  1504  were  appended  to  the 
tomes  of  Gregory  Nazienzis.  The  first  portion  inde- 
pendently published  was  the  first  14  verses  of  John, 
in  Tubingen.  The  first  complete  edition  was  that 
which  forms  the  fifth  volume  of  the  great  Coraplu- 
tensian  Polyglot  of  Spain,  so  named  from  the  place  where 
it  was  printed.  It  was  prepared  under  the  direction  of 
Cardinal  Ximenes,  confessor  of  Isabella.  This  polyglot 
was  to  commemorate  the  birth  of  Chas.  V.  ;  600  copies 
were  printed  at  a  cost  of  50,000  ducats,  Jan.  1514,  just 
the  date  of  the  early  struggles  of  Luther.     Owing  tode- 


22 

lay  in  receiving  sanction  it  was  not  published  till  1520. 
The  printers  claimed  to  have  had  MSS.  loaned  from  the 
Vatican  Library,  All  the  ancient  MSS.  of  Xiraenes  are 
now  at  Madrid.  As  to  those  lent  from  the  Vatican  by 
Pope  Leo  X,  it  is  shown  that  Leo  did  not  become  Pope 
till  March,  1513,  while  the  Complutensian  text  was  fin- 
ished in  1514;  three-fourths  of  a  year  is  not  enough 
time  for  the  work.  The  text  also  agrees  with  modern 
MSS.,  subsequent  to  the  10th  century,  rather  than  with 
the  ancient.  Its  authority  is  further  impaired,  because 
it  alters  the  text  in  many  places  to  correspond  with  the 
Vulgate. 

Owing  to  the  delay  in  publishing  the  polyglot,  the 
edition  of  Erasmus  anticipated  it  by  four  years;  hence 
the  dispute  arose  as  to  which  was  the  princeps.  The 
work  of  Erasmus  was  very  hastily  done,  and  was  founded 
on  a  small  number  of  MSS.;  some  of  them  were  al- 
tered in  favor  of  the  Vulgate.  The  one  old  MS.  which 
he  had  bothered  him  so  that  he  threw  it  aside.  Li  one 
instance  six  solid  verses  were  translated  out  of  the  Vul- 
gate. Consequently  there  are  numerous  errors  in  our 
common  text.  The  first  of  these  editions  was  published 
in  1516.  A  very  fine  copy  of  it  is  one  of  the  treasures 
of  our  library.  The  second  edition,  1519,  is  that  from 
which  Luther's  translation  was  made.  The  third  admits 
a  passage  in  John  about  the  three  witnesses,  concerning 
which  Erasmus  had  a  controversy  with  one  of  the  edit- 
ors of  the  Comp.  Polyglot,  the  history  of  which  is  in- 
teresting. He  was  attacked  by  the  Romanists  for  alter- 
ing the  Vulgate  (I  John,  v,  7,  8)  for,  following  the 
MS.  authorities,  he  omitted  the  interpolated  words. 
Yielding  to  the  pressure,  Erasmus  at  last  consented  to 
insert  it,  provided  it  could  be  shown  in  any  MS.  Of 
course  one  was  brought  him.  This  whole  MS.,  which 
was  made  for  the  purpose,  is  now  at  Trinity  College, 
Dublin.  These  words  are  not  genuine.  Such  was  the  de- 
mand for  the  Greek  text  that  3300  copies  of  the  first 
edition  were  sold.  In  1527  a  fourth  edition  was  issued, 
and  afterwards  a  fifth  in  1535.  He  had  only  8  MSS., 
and  the  best  was  rejected  because  it  disagreed  with  the 
others  and  was  troublesome. 


f^ 


VC^€'.iicL4      IS 


iV  '  V 


23 

But  what  is  the  foundation  of  our  common  Greek 
text?  A  second  series  of  the  5th  edition  was  pnblised 
by  Robert  Stephens  and  his  son  Henry  at  Paris,  in  the 
time  of  Francis  I.  and  Henry  II.  The  3d  Stej)hen8  is 
the  important  one  to  fix  in  the  memory  ;  it  was  founded 
on  the  Erasmian,  and  published  in  1550.  In  England 
it  is  quoted  to  this  day  as  the  English  common  text. 
This  is  the  folio  Regia.  This  was  the  first  attempt  at 
giving  various  readings.  In  the  4th  edition,  prepared  at 
Genoa  the  next  year,  the  division  into  verses  appeared 
for  the  first  time.  In  1552  Robert  Stephens  moved  to 
Genoa,  where  he  professed  Protestant  opinions.  The 
number  of  distinct  editions  published  about  this  time 
was  great ;  5  editions  of  Erasmus,  5  of  Stephens,  5  of 
Beza.  The  date  of  Beza  is  commonly  given  as  1555, 
but  the  true  date  is  1559-1598.  Beza  first  brought  to 
the  aid  of  criticism  eastern  MSS.  His  text  is  founded 
on  the  Regia  of  Stephens.  He  difl:ers  often  where  he 
has  no  authority  and  does  not  better  it.  His  work  is 
colored  by  theological  bias.  Beza's  attempt  was  the  last 
for  a  century,  until  the  new  impulse  of  the  rise  of  mod- 
ern criticism. 

No  important  advance  has  been  made  on  the  Stephens 
folio.  The  editions  of  the  Elzevirs  have  become  famous 
for  their  beauty  and  accuracy.  In  1624  they  published 
a  24  mo.T^.  T.,  and  again  in  16vS,  an  edition  in  which 
they  separated  the  paragraphs  into  verses.  This  edition 
is  their  best,  and  is  founded  on  the  Regia.  The  editor 
was  little  more  than  a  proof-reader.  Tischendorf  gives 
150  variations  between  this  one  and  the  Stephens  edition. 
The  textus  receptus  is  thus  founded  on  the  Regia.  This 
text  of  Erasmus,  really  the  basis  of  the  common  text, 
was  drawn  from  but  eight  MSS. !  So  small  is  its  au- 
thcCrity,  and  so  founded  on  the  authority  of  man,  that  we 
are  often  compelled  to  use  our  best  judgment  as  to  the 
true  reading. 

Critical  Editions  and  Principles  of  Criticism. 

The  common  text  held  undisputed  possession  of  the 
field  for  nearly  a  century.  There  was  an  advantage  in 
this  w^hen  information  was  scarce.     In  the  latter  part  of 


24 

the  17th  century  a  systematic  effort  was  made  to  recover 
the  true  text.  The  honor  of  beginning  this  belongs  to 
England.  There  were  four  important  steps:  l.The 
London  Polyglot,  by  Walton,  afterwards  bishop  of 
Chester,  in  1657,  the  time  of  Cromwell— in  6  folio  vol- 
umes. The  text  is  3d  Stephens,  the  standard  in  England. 
The  6th  volume  presents  the  various  readings;  the  5th 
hns  the  K.  T.,  with  five  oriental  versions.  This  Poly- 
glot perpetuated  critical  deceit  to  a  certain  extent,  as  it 
adopted  a  reading  of  a  Spanish  marquis  which  is  found 
to  have  been  translated  from  the  Vulgate  back  to  the 
Greek.  In  1658  an  Amsterdam  edition  was  published. 
2.  In  1675,  John  Fell,  Bishop  of  Oxford,  published  an 
elegant  octavo  edition  founded  on  the  text  of  the  pre- 
vious editions,  with  18  new  MSS.  3.  The  third  step 
was  the  edition  of  John  Mill,  1707,  at  Oxford.  Bishop 
Fell  entrusted  all  his  critical  material  to  the  young 
scholar,  who  labored  30  years  and  completed  the  work 
just  a  fortnight  before  his  death.  Several  critics  have 
died  thus.  Mill  was  the  first  to  make  regular  use  of 
versions  and  patristic  citations.  The  chief  value  of  this 
edition  was  the  impulse  it  gave  to  the  subsequent;  it 
was  the  standard  in  England  for  100  years.  Though  he 
did  not  alter  the  common  text,  but  gave  the  different 
readii]gs  in  the  margin,  so  many  variations  caused  great 
alarm.  Whitby  wrote  a  review  of  Mill's  edition  "con- 
demning it,  and  urging  the  worth  of  the  common  text, 
and  use  was  made  of  this  by  an  infidel  writer  to  show 
that  no  authority  was  due  the  MSS.  This  argument 
was  answered  in  the  4th  step.  Bentley  (1652-1742), 
showed  that  if  these  readings  existed  before  discovery, 
discovery  did  not  alter  the  facts  ;  if  religion  was  true 
before  it  was  true  afterwards  ;  that  there  were  advan- 
tages in  these  variations — for  without  them  we  would  be 
bound  to  a  single  MS.,  with  all  its  mistakes.  The  fact 
of  variety  is  an  advantage,  for  by  comparison  we  may 
arrive  at  a  conclusion.  "He  declares  that  if  half  the 
number  of  MSS.  had  been  compared  with  half  the  care 
for  any  profane  writer  the  number  of  variations  would 
have  been  much  greater.  The  leading  idea  of  Bentley 
was  the  fundamental  idea  of  comparison,  viz.  :  the  older 


to/ 


'I.  iiU'f^ 


U-i-^ 


(UiUiC 


3  '  liu'i ' 


h 


liH-i 


f 


tj-u-f 


J 


t/lU 


'pltu 


!'f 


1  /C<.i/I 


'Myt^^tAMj 


f 


rather  tlian  the  more  numerous  MSS.  ;  comparative 
criticism  is  the  great  authority ;  the  old  form  is  the 
original  one,  because  when  we  get  the  oldest  ,form  of 
the  Latin  text  and  the  Syriac  it  agrees  with  the  oldest 
MSS.  Bentley  first  called  attention  to  this.  He  says: 
"  Taking  2000  errors  out  of  the  Pope's  Vulgate  and  as 
many  out  of  the  common  text,  I  can  set  out  an  edition 
of  each  without  using  any  book  under  900  years  old  !  " 
Bentley  died  in  1742,  leaving  his  work  incomplete.  Mr. 
Scrivener,  on  the  other  hand,  says  he  did  not  complete  it 
because  he  knew  he  was  wrong.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  case. 

Bengel,  1687-1752.  Ben,2:el  was  scholarly,  pious  and 
orthodox.  He  published  a  quarto  in  1744.  His  merit 
consisted  in  two  things:  1.  The  clear  recognition  and 
statement  of  the  rule  that  the  more  diflicult  reading  is 
to  be  preferred  to  the  easier.  The  others  of  course,  had 
acted  on  this  principle,  but  it  had  not  been  formulated. 
2.  He  was  the  first  to  observe  the  similarity  in  the  varia- 
tions of  a  great  number  of  MSS.,  and  see  that  it  was 
possible  to  classify.  He  recognized  the  great  divisions 
of  African  and  Asiatic — the  first  being  the  more  ancient 
and  authoritative.  He  was  the  first  also  to  quote  both 
sides.  He  had  wonderful  scholarly  insight.  The  mistake 
that  he  made  was  that  of  adopting  the  arbitrary  rule  of 
admitting  readings  that  had  not  been  found  in  any  pre- 
vious edition,  except  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  foun- 
dation for  the  text  was  so  slight. 

His  opponent  was  Vetstein,  who  denied  any  such 
thing  as  family  likeness  in  MSS.  He  was  obliged  to  flee  to 
Amsterdam  on  account  of  his  lapse  from  orthodoxy. 
His  edition  of  1751,  Amsterdam,  is  still  of  value  to 
scholars,  though  his  opinions  were  doubtless  warped. 
He  charged  the  most  ancient  MSS.  with  being  changed. 
His  edition  was  the  first  to  use  the  common  notation  of 
MSS.  by  letters  and  numbers.  (A  fine  copy  is  in  the 
library.) 

Modern  Criticism  begins  with  Griesbach  (1745- 
1812),  of  Hesse-Darmstadt,  a  professor  at  Halle.  The 
materials  of  criticism  had  greatly  increased,  and  to  them 
order  and  system  were  applied.     Griesbach  was  entirely 


26 

free  from  prejudice  in  his  labors,  and  he  had  great  ac- 
tivity in  theological  learning.  Thirt}'  years  ago  he  was 
quoted  just  as  Tischendorf  is  at  the  present  day.  He 
made  accurate  collections  of  the  readings  of  Origen; 
he  differed  from  Vetstien,  and  agreed  with  Bentley  in 
dividing  the  MSS.  into  African  and  Asiatic,  bat  he  car- 
ried the  division  farther,  making  of  the  African  two 
classes,  viz  :  Western,  or  Alexandrian,  and  Constanti- 
nopolitan.  These  classes  he  calls  recensions,  his  idea 
being  that  they  arose  from  attempt  at  different  times 
and  at  different  places  to  get  a  true  text.  He  considered 
the  Occidental  Recension  the  oldest,  but  corrupted  by 
glosses  and  alterations.  It  is  the  text  of  Codex  D,  of 
Cambridge,  the  Vulgate,  theltala,  and  the  Latin  leathers. 
The  Alexandrian  was  an  attempt  to  revise  the  former, 
he  thinks.  The  standard  of  this  is  found  in  Origen,  and 
A,  B  and  C.  The  Constantinopolitan  Recension  he 
believed  to  be  a  combination  of  the  other  two  ;  it  arose 
about  the  4th  century.  This  comprises  19-20  of  the 
whole  mass  of  MSS.  and  extant  materials.  MSS.  testify, 
therefore,  by  families,  and  the  greatest  weight  is  given 
to  the  Alexandrian.  The  union  of  any  two  of  these  is 
sufficient  proof  of  a  reading  ;  if  the  two  oldest,  however, 
disagree,  then  the  place  of  the  Const,  was  to  mediate 
between  them.  Griesbach  was  a  conservative  thinker  ; 
his  somewhat  artificial  principle  really  led  him  right,  and 
his  classification  proved  of  immeiise  service  for  a  long 
time.  His  editions  were  issued  in  1775  and  1806;  in  the 
interval  much  new  material  was  gathered.  Some  of  his 
rules  are  still  used,  viz  : 

1.  No  reading  to  be  accepted  without  support  of  an- 
cient testimony. 

2.  The  shorter  rather  than  the  longer. 

3.  The  more  difficult  rather  than  the  easier. 

4.  Thcit  which  is  a  clear  proof  of  orthodox  doctrine 
is  usually  suspicious. 

ScHOLZ,  a  i»eft)T-m«d  Roman  Catholic,  was  at  one 
time  much  copied  in  England.  His  inflence  was  due 
partly  to  his  activity,  partly  to  his  giving  authority  to 
the  modern  MSS.  He  brought  in  118  cursives,  but  col- 
lated   only    13.     His  work  is   now-a-days   regarded   as 


h^r 


/ 


'     W// 


27 

superficial  and  full  of  blunders;  nobody  takes  his  au- 
thority. With  him  the  schools  began  to  divide.  He 
was  a  reactionist,  giving  the  greater  weight  to  the  more 
numerous  MSS.  Scholz  urged  the  objection  that  the 
ancient  MSS.  diifer  among  themselves.  To  this  we  may 
answer — 

1.  That  the  fact  is  disputed.  Scrivener  insists  that 
this  objection  is  a  ground  of  their  authority  ;  their  very 
difference  proves  that  they  are  independent  testimonies. 
2.  Modern  texts  are  not  true  simply  because  they  agree, 
for  they  might  be  multiplied  copies  of  the  same  stand- 
ard. The  history  of  the  Vulgate  illustrates  the  point, 
the  modern  manuscripts  agreeing  in  over  2000  instances 
where  they  agree  in  differing  from  the  older  or  estab- 
lished Vulgate  text.  3.  Where  the  mass  of  later  cursive 
MSS,  differ  from  the  ancient,  comparative  criticism  is 
the  great  appeal,  comparing  with  the  ancient  Greek  all 
the  other  sources  of  versions,  quotations,  etc.  This  was 
Bentley's  principle,  but  he  had  not  the  material ;  and 
this  is  the  principle  of  modern  critics.  The  further  we 
go  the  nearer  we  approach  the  very  words  of  the  inspired 
text.  Scholz  w^as  superficial  and  unreliable  :  so  all  his 
work  had  to  be  done  over  again. 

Lachmann  holds  a  high  place  in  modern  criticism. 
First  edition,  1831,  the  next  in  1842  (second  volume, 
1850).  This  edition  is  of  lasting  value.  He  was  accu- 
rate in  collation,  so  that  what  he  says  we  may  take  as 
matter  of  fact.  He  was  the  first  to  form  a  text  upon  evi- 
dence alone  irrespective  of  the  common  text.  Ancient 
authority  is  the  great  corner-stone  of  the  school  of  Lach- 
mann. He  adheres  to  the  ancient  sources  of  evidence, 
no  matter  to  what  that  evidence  leads.  The  question 
commonly  asked  was,  Is  there  any  necessity  for  depart- 
ing from  the  common  reading?  "This,"  says  Lach- 
mann, "  was  the  question  with  Griesbach.  With  me  it 
is.  Is  there  any  necessity  for  departing  from  the  most 
ancient  authorities  ?"  His  MSS.  were  A,  B  and  C,  with 
4  fragments  from  the  4th  to  the  9th  century.  Great 
credit  is  due  him  for  the  development  of  materials  from 
the  ante-Jerome  authorities.  What  w^as  the  actual  text 
in  the  4th  century?  was  the  question  with   him;  he  al- 


28 

f 

lowed  himself  no  choice  of  those  older  than  the  4th 
century,  the  oldest,  he  thinks,  that  we  can  obtain  with 
certainty  of  value.  This  seems  like  a  very  formal  and 
absurd  principle,  and  so  it  is  practically.  To  relieve  the 
difficulty  where  he  was  led  into  error  by  this,  he  draws 
the  distinction  closely  between  the  recension  and  the 
subsequent  emendation.  The  objections  to  Lachmaiin 
are:  1.  The  narrow  range  of  authorities  he  allows.  The 
only  version  which  he  adopts  is  the  old  Latin.  2.  The 
rigidness  with  which  he  adhered'  to  his  principle,  even 
accepting  acknowledged  error.  3.  The  problem  which 
he  presents  himselt  is  not  really  the  true  problem,  viz  ; 
What  is  the  text  of  the  4th  centry  ?  We  want  to  know 
what  is  the  true  text  itsslf.  Yet  his  is  a  very  important 
contribution.  His  critical  judgment  was  wonderfully 
accurate. 

TiscHENDORF  published  his  first  edition  in  1841. 
Three  editions  in  Paris  ;  then  a  second  Leipsic  edition 
in  1849.  The  seventh  edition  was  for  a  time  the  most 
complete.  He  has  later  commentaries  since  1860,  the 
time  of  the  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  and  his  8th 
and  last  edition  was  finished  just  before  his  death  in  De- 
cember, 1874.  (He  died  from  paralysis.)  He  was 
the  great  authority  of  his  day,  and  as  good  as  any 
in  our  own  time;  he  did  more  than  any  other  one  man, 
perhaps;  and  although  his  judgment  is  not  always  the 
best,  and  his  temper  was  bad,  his  accuracy  is  acknowl- 
edged. 

His  principle  is  to  found  the  text  on  the  most  ancient 
evidence  ;  to  discover  what  the  inspired  authors  actually 
wrote  the  most  adequate  evidence  is  the  ancient  Greek 
MSS.  He  has  a  wider  range  than  Lachmann,  and  the 
bases  of  his  criticism  are  much  wider  than  Lachmann's. 
His  principles  are  as  follows  : 

I.  That  a  reading  peculiar  to  one  document  is  sus- 
picious, especially  if  there  is  any  evidence  that  it  has 
originated  in  an  idiosyncracy  or  peculiar  judgment  of 
some  author. 

n.  Readings,  however  plausible,  if  errors  of  copyists, 
are  to  be  rejected. 


29 

III.  In  case  of  parallel  passages,  those  testimonies 
are  preferable  in  which  precise  verbal  concordance  does 
not  occur.     The  temptation  of  copyists  is  to  assimilate. 

ly.,. The  great  canon.  This  is  the  rule  formulated 
by  Bengel,  viz  :  In  various  readings  that  must  be 
adopted  which  accounts  for  other  readings,  that  which 
appears  to  have  given  occasions  for  them.  After  the  ad- 
herence to  ancient  MSS.,  this  is  the  most  valuable  canon 
of  criticism.  Bcngel's  form  of  this  is  open  to  objection. 
It  would  appear  that  the  errors  were  intentional  ;  but 
this  is  not  the  chief  source  of  corruptions.  "  Nonsense 
is  always  more  difficult  than  sense,"  says  Dr.  Alexander 
Sometimes  the  rule  would  not  work.  These  objections 
do  not  lie  against  the  rule  as  aimounced  by  Tischendorf. 
Amid  a  group  of  readings  there  must  always  be  one 
that  will  account  for  the  others,  and  this,  according  to 
the  rules  of  common  sense,  is  the  true  one.  But  testi- 
mony is  superior  to  all  rules. 

V.  He  appeals  to  the  diflerence  of  style  of  the  N,  T. 
authors  and  the  character  of  the  N.  T.  Greek.  He 
adheres  to  those  readings  which  best  accord  with  the  N. 
T.  Greek.  The  common  text  contains  fewer  Alexandrian 
peculiarities  than  the  original  text  perhaps;  these  were 
removed  in  copying.  Various  criticisms  have  been 
urged  against  this  position.  Bishop  Ellicott  in  his  intro- 
duction to  some  commentaries  testifies  by  his  personal 
knowledge  of  certain  languages  that  Tischendorf  was 
not  acquainted  with  those  languages.  Another  is  the 
difference  of  his  editions.  His  8th  edition  quotes  most 
against  himself,  reversing  his  judgment.  Scrivener  says 
his  8th  edition  differs  from  his  7th  in  more  than  3000 
places.  One  must  always  be  on  his  guard  in  quoting 
Tischendorf.  He  says  he  was  always  learning;  never- 
theless this  throws  doubt  upon  his  judgment.  Another 
objection  was  that  after  the  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic 
MS.  he  was  so  carried  away  with  it  that  he  would 
allow  its  readings  to  overweigh  other  readings.  This 
was  true  often,  but  often  it  was  not  true  ;  in  many  cases 
he  decides  against  A  and  B.  Still  Tischendorf  is  per- 
haps quoted  more  than  any  one  else. 


30 

Tregelles,  ill  1856,  re-wrote  that  part  of  Home's 
Introduction  which  relates  to  the  K  T.  He,  too,  was 
paralyzed,  and  died  in  1875  while  working  on  Revela- 
tion, just  as  Tischendorf  had  died.  He  agrees*  in  the 
main  with  the  latter.  His  peculiarities  are  two  :  1. 
That  he  started  with  the  impossible  notion  of  giving  no 
evidence  at  second  hand.  As  a  matter  of  course  he 
would  begin  with  the  most  important  monuments;  by 
the  restriction  of  time  his  attention  would  be  coniined 
to  a  very  few;  the  result  is  that  his  readings  are  pecu- 
liarly like  Lachmann's.  But  this  was  not  a  matter  of 
principle  with  him.  2.  Another  peculiarity  is  that  which 
makes  it  valuable  to  the  student;  instead  "of  being  full 
of  everything,  Tregelles  selects  few  readings  and"  does 
not  burden  his  book  with  matter  of  only  secondary  im- 
portance. Another  feature  of  his  edition  is  the  special 
attention  paid  to  the  readings  of  versions  under  the 
Fathers,  Origen's  great  depository. 

Westcott  and  Hort's  edition  has  been  in  course  of 
preparation  for  25  years,  and  is  still  withheld  as  it  is 
expected  to  be  a  standard.  It  is  to  give  the  result  of 
the  most  careful  weighing  and  judicial  examination  of 
evidence. 

Scrivener  is  now  the  greatest  living  authority.  He 
arose  from  poverty  and  became  an  English  clergyman 
and  a  great  writer.  He  is  somewhat  opposed  to  Lach- 
mann  ;  advocates  the  modern  authorities,  and  gives 
more  and  more  weight  to  internal  evidence.  His  Six 
Lectures  on  Introduction  to  Modern  Criticism  is  a  most 
readable  book. 

As  the  result  of  the  whole  matter,  critics  ?re  divided 
into  two  schools,  one  preferring  the  ancient  MSS.,  the 
other  the  modern.  There  is  no  standard  text ;  yet  far 
the  most  important  portions  of  the  N.  T.  are  fixed. 
The  MSS.  of  the  ancient  classics  are  not  many;  the 
more  popular  of  the  fathers  have  fared  somewhat  i3etter, 
yet  there  is  only  one  copy  of  Clement;  the  best  copy  of 
Irenaeusis  oneof  thelOth  century.  There  are  above  1000 
MSS.  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,  and  others  are  being  continu- 
ally brought  to  light.  When  we  consider  how  recent  is 
the  rise  of  criticism,  and  how  much   is  being  done,  we 


31 

can  refute  the  objection  that  its  results  are  negative  ;  the 
very  best  result  we  could  ask  is  that  the  Bibte  be  left  as 
it  is,  w^ith  a  mass  of  evidence  collected  to  prove  its  au- 
thority and  authenticity.  We  can  already  say  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  :N".  T.  never  can  be  discredited  on 
evidence. 

Becapitulation  of  the  Principles  of  Criticism.  We  have, 
in  the  first  place,  three  depositories  of  the  text,  manu- 
scripts, versions  and  quotations,  2nd.  Among  the 
whole  number  of  MSS.  the  oldest  is  most  likely  to  con- 
tain the  purest  text,  being  nearest  to  the  source.  3d. 
But  this  character  must  not  be  taken  for  granted,  but 
supported  by  actual  external  evidence;  if,  in  multitudes 
of  cases,  examination  shows  that  they  are  supported  by 
collateral  testimony,  their  superiority  is  established. 
4th.  A  very  few  of  the  cursives,  as  33  and  69  Tregelles, 
bear  this  test.  5th.  If  the  oldest  MSS.  had  agreed  en- 
tirely there  would  have  been  no  difficult3^  BiU,  even  in 
the  first  century  after  the  apostles  the  text  had  been 
largely  altered,  as  we  know  by  the  various  ways  in  which 
it  is  quoted.  6th.  What  shall  decide  where  authorities 
differ?  The  school  of  Lachmann,  including  nearly  all 
the  modern  critics,  Tischendorf,  Wescott,  Hort  and 
nearly  all  the  commentators,  say  that  where  the  oldest 
MSS.  difi:er,  the  appeal  must  be  to  versions  which  are 
older  than  the  MSS.  themselves;  and  that  the  combina- 
tion of  a  few  MSS.  must  be  held  as  conclusive.  7th. 
More  and  more  weight  is  given  in  our  day  to  the  princi- 
ple of  grouping  as  announced  by  Bengel  and  carried  to 
extremes  by  Scholz.  Evidence  is  more  important  when 
it  accumulates  from  difterent  quarters  on  the  same  point. 
MSS.  may  agree  in  style,  elegance,  tendency  to  paraphrase, 
etc.  This  grouping  is  not  a  return  to  Griesbach's  idea 
of  recension,  which  was  that  the  three  families  of  MSS. 
were  the  result  of  an  effort  to  publish  and  amend  the 
text  at  three  difterent  times.  The  principle  of  grouping 
does  not  recognize  any  such  thing.  If  two  MSS.  char- 
acteristically difter,  they  are  evidence  of  independent 
traditions  of  the  text ;  now  where  such  agree  the  evi- 
dence is  very  strong.  8th.  Very  often  the  evidence  is  so 
balanced  that  nobody  can  make  up  bis  mind;  then   the 


32 

appeal  is  to  the  principles  of  internal  evidence,  i.  e.,  to 
the  rules  laid  down  by  Tischendorf.  Here  again,  there 
is  great  difference  between  the  schools;  Tregelles  gives 
less  weight  to  these  than  Tischendorf;  on  the  other 
hand,  Scrivener  attaches  great  inriportance  to  them  and 
divides  them  up  into  about  twenty.  His  reasons  are  : 
Ist.  That  these  rules  are  too  narrow,  that  they  exclude 
evidence.  2nd.  He  objects  that  the  agreement  of  the 
oldest  uncials  among  themselves  is  not  so  great  as  might 
be  supposed.  3d.  When  they  agree  the  appeal  ought  to 
be  made  not  only  to  ancient  but  to  modern  MSS"  He 
says  that  the  cursives  are  evidence  ot  MSS.  now  lost. 
4th.  His  special  appeal  is  to  the  judgment  on  internal 
evidence.  Now  just  there  you  will  see  an  objection  to 
this  method  of  appeal  to  modern  authorities;  that  it 
may  be  true  for  the  interpreter  or  the  exegete,  but  what 
we  want  of  a  critic  is  to  coiifine  himself  to  existing  evi- 
dence, pure,  clear  and  unbiased  by  any  sense  of  mean- 
ing. We  do  not  want  the  critic  to  go  upon  analogy  of 
faith. 

Scrivener's  Canons  are  reducible  to  the  following  : 

I.  The  text  is  not  to  be  derived  from  any  one  set  of 
authorities,  but  by  comparison  of  all  sources. 

II.  When  real  agreement  exists  between  the  old  MSS. 
up  to  the  6th  century,  and  the  new  up  to  the  9th,  they 
are  in  all  probability  correct,  but  there  is  a  possibility  of 
the  old  being  wrong  and  the  modern  correct. 

III.  Where  the  oldest  MSS.  disagree  the  testimony 
of  later  uncials  and  cursives  is  important. 

IV.  The  highest  value  is  to  be  given  to  readings 
coming  from  remote  independent  sources.  So  k  and  B 
are  not  so  strong  as  A  and  B.  He  considers  B  the  high- 
est authority,  and  B  and  C  the  best  combination,  because 
they  differ  ;  thus  when  they  combine  the  evidence  is  con- 
clusive. 

Tregelles,  on  the  other  hand,  holds  : 

I.  The  best  authority  is  that  of  the  oldest  MSS.  and 
versions,  so  as  to  present  as  far  as  possible  the  text  re- 
ceived in  the  4th  century. 

II.  If  we  have  proof  which  carries  us  nearer  the 
apostolic  age,  use  the  data. 


33 

III.  In  cases  in  which  the  oldest  documents  agree  in 
manifest  error,  state  it  but  give  the  grounds  for  a  better 
reading. 

IV.  In  matters  altogether  doubtful  give  the  best 
readings,  but  do  not  try  to  settle  the  difficulty. 

V.  He  gives  authority  to  the  readings  of  all  the  cur- 
sives and  uncials. 

The  two  schools  difter  first  on  ancient  authority,  and 
secondly,  on  the  part  left  to  judgment,  or  internal  evi- 
dence. The  result  after  all  is  not  so  great ;  where  the 
ancient  testimony  from  all  quarters  is  concordant  all 
would  receive  it.  Criticism's  chief  value  has  been  the 
accumulation  of  evidence  for  the  great  portion  of  the 
N.  T.  where  there  is  no  difference.  If  criticism  had 
done  no  more  than  that  we  still  would  owe  it  much  for 
its  overwhelming  testimony.  What  better  can  we  ask  ? 
For  instance,  the  first  verses  of  the  1st  chapter  of  the 
Gospel  of  John  do  not  difi:er  in  the  several  versions. 
Again,  as  this  is  a  question  of  evidence,  common-sense 
minds  will  agree  after  a  time.  In  the  last  twenty  years 
there  has  been  a  wonderful  growth  in  enlightenment 
and  agreement,  and  yet  the  day  when  the  last  word  is  to 
be  said  as  to  the  ancient  text  has  not  come.  The  life- 
time of  a  few  individuals  is  not  enough  to  accomplish 
all. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Principal  Passages  in  Dispute. 

Mark  xvi,  9-20,  John  iii,  13, 

Luke  xxiv,  51,  Acts  vii,  37, 

Matt,  vi,  12,  13,  Acts  xx,  28, 

Johnv,  3,  4,  1  John  V,  7,  8, 

John  vii,  53-viii,  11,  1  Timothy  iii,  16, 

John  i,  18,  1  Peter  iii,  15, 
1  John  iv,  2,  3. 

I.  The  most  extended  passage  in  dispute  is  the  last 
twelve  verses  of  Mark.  These  verses  are  omitted  in 
X  and  B.  L.  substitutes  a  shorter  passage.  About  25 
cursives  omit  them.     The  Ammonian  sections  stop  with 


34 

the  8th  verse.  Of  versions,  the  Armenian,  the  Ethiopic, 
atjd  one  old  Latin  onfiit  them.  The  last  fact  is  not  so 
conclusive,  because  many  of  the  best  Latin  MSS.  are 
defective.  Eusebius  evidently  does  not  accept  them, 
and  Jerome  speaks  of  many  Greek  MSS.  which  omit 
them.  This  is  pretty  strong  ancient  testimony.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  their  favor  is  the  great  mass  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  evidence,  A,  C,  D,  all  the  rest  of  the 
uncials,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  cursives;  among  the 
versions,  the  I'eshito,  the  Vulgate  and  some  old  Latin  ; 
of  the  fathers,  Irenaeus,  liippolytus  and  the  later  tatliers 
generally.  So  there  is  an  amount  of  very  ancient  evi- 
dence on  each  side. 

'Now  what  are  we  to  do  ?  In  the  first  place  the 
appeal  is  to  internal  evidence.  The  argument  of  those 
who  reject  ib  this:  1st,  That  in  these  12  verses  there  is 
a  good  deal  of  phraseology  out  ot  analogy  with  the  rest 
of  the  gospel  ;  and  this  is  of  two  sorts,  negative  and 
positive.  Negatively,  many  of  the  peculiarities  of 
Mark's  language  do  not  occur  here;  and,  positively, 
many  expressions  occur  here  which  he  never  uses  else- 
where, e.  g.,  "  the  first  day  of  the  week  "  where  we 
would  expect  •'  Sabbath  ;  "  'o  xuptoQ  is  used  absolutely  for 
Christ  hei'e  and  nowhere  else  in  the  Gospel.  Those  who 
accept  the  passage  slight  these  and  say  such  things  often 
occur,  and  that  in  closing  he  naturally  employs  terms  he 
had  notused  before.  Theargumentfromstyleisamong  the 
most  precarious  of  all  arguments.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  internal  evidence  is  favorable.  1st.  The  motive  for 
the  omission  of  the  passage  is  apparent,  viz.,  to  throw 
away  diificulties.  But  this  is  a  poor  principle.  2nd. 
The  Gospel  terminates  most  abruptly  without  these 
verses.  3d.  The  very  difiiculties  which  they  present 
show  that  they  could  not  have  been  added  later  than  the 
apostolic  age.  Scrivener  is  for  the  passage,  Tischendorf 
against  it,  and  intermediate  between  them  are  most 
critics. 

The  conclusion  is,  1st,  they  probably  did  not  come 
from  the  same  hand  ;  and  2nd,  they  are  added  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  apostolic  church.  Not  by  Mark,  yet 
canonical. 


35 

II.  Luke  xxiv,  51.  A,  B,  several  cursives,  one  old 
Latin,  and  an  extant  passage  from  Augustine  omit  these 
words.  Onl}'  in  the  close  of  Mark  and  in  these  words 
of  Luke  have  we  any  account  of  the  a.^cension  ;  it  is  given 
by  Luke  in  Acts,  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels. 
Tregelles,  Scrivener,  Westcott  and  llort  retain  these 
words  on  the  authority  of  all  the  rest  of  the  MSS. 

in.  Matt,  vi,  12,  13.  In  the  12th  verse  the  aorist 
'•forgave"  is  substituted  on  the  authority  of  A,  B,  C, 
Origen,  Basil,  Gregory  Naz.  Several  uncials  give  the 
common  text.  Dr.  Schaff  suggests  "  as  we  have  for- 
given." More  important  is  the  omission  of  the  dox- 
ology  in  the  13th  verse.  All  the  oldest  uncials,  five  cur- 
sives, the  old  Latin,  the  Vulgate  versions,  the  Greek 
fathers,  Origen,  Gregory  and  all  the  Latin  fathers  omit 
these  words.  On  the  other  hand,  in  favor  of  the  pas- 
sage are  the  later  uncials  and  the  mass  of  the  cursives  ; 
also  the  Syriac,  Ethiopian,  Armenian  and  Gothic  ver- 
sions. The  probable  way  of  accounting  for  its  reception 
by  the  4th  century  documents,  is  that  it  was  a  tradition- 
ary way  of  closing  prayer  perhaps  derived  from  the 
custom  of  the  apostles,  perhaps  of  Christ  himself.  But 
in  criticism  it  has  no  place  in  Matthew;  the  great  ma- 
jority agree  that  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  prayer  does 
not  belong  to  the  Bible. 

IV.  John  v,  3,  4.  Against  the  last  clause  of  the  3d 
verse  are  A,  JB,  C,  L,  later  uncials,  a  good  many  cur- 
sives, and  some  versions.  For  it  are  the  Peshito,  many 
Latin  MSS.,  &c.  Tertullian  clearly  refers  to  it.  The 
4th  verse  is  omitted  by  B,  C,  D,  and  a  few  other  cursive 
MSS.  A,  L,  Tertullian,  the  Peshito,  and  by  degrees  the 
later  MSS.  accept  it.  But  the  old  authorities  constantly 
mark  it  as  suspicious.  The  internal  evidence  is  quite 
against  it,  for,  1st.  The  whole  text  of  the  verse  is  ex- 
ceedingly varied.  2nd.  It  contains  unusual  expressions. 
3d.  It  "has  no  analogy  with  the  miracles.  A  standing 
miracle,  a  miraculous  pool  is  quite  out  of  analogy  with 
any  Scriptural  facts.  4th.  It  originated  as  a  marginal 
scholium,  made  perhaps  to  account  for  the  difficulty. 
Critics  almost  universally  consent  to  the  erasing  of  this 
verse.     Some  one  suggests  that  it  was  inserted   by  the 


36 

apostle  himself,  but  tliat  is  the  purest  guess.  The  usual 
feeling  of  orthodox  exegetes  is  that  this  passage  is  bet- 
ter lost  thau  saved,  because  the  evidence  is  so  strong 
against  it. 

V.  tfohn  vii,  53 — viii,  11 — is  wanting  in  many  of  the 
oldest  jMSS,  a  and  C  are  somewhat  defective  here.  In 
many  it  is  marked  doubtful ;  it  is  omitted  in  the  Peshito, 
etc. ;  it  is  found  in  the  Vulgate,  and  is  mentioned  by 
Jerome  and  Augustine.  The  internal  ditiaculty  is  that 
those  MSS.,  which  give  it,  vary  more  in  this  passage 
than  in  any  other  N.  T.  passage;  it  also  differs  in  style 
from  John's  writings,  containing  many  words  not  else- 
where found  in  John.  All  these  considerations  taken 
together  produce  the  impression  that  this  never  came 
from  the  pen  of  John.  ,  Tertullian  and  others,  writing 
on  what  should  bring  this  in  omit  it,  and  it  does  not  ap- 
pear in  any  MSS.  earlier  than  the  4th  century.  On  true 
critical  principles,  therefore,  it  must  be  rejected.  But 
we  do  not  want  to  lose  this  story  ;  it  may  be  true, 
though  not  canonical.  Ttie  later  MSS.  accept  it,  and 
Eusebius  contains  such  a  tradition ;  but  it  is  almost  uni- 
versally given  up  as  non-canonical. 

VI.  We  will  now  consider  a  few  passages  of  theo- 
logical importance.  John  i,  18.  Instead  of  ufoc  of  the 
common  text,  B,  C,  L,  33,  etc.,  support  ^eoc.  This  read- 
ing may  almost  be  called  general  among  the  fathers. 
The  reading  of  the  common  text  is  found  in  A  and  the 
MSS.  generally.  Here  is  a  troublesome  case  ;  the  old- 
est authorities  support  ^soc,  the  widest  spread  support 
otb^.  For  ^eoc  on  strict  critical  principles  are  many  of 
the  modern  critics.  Tischendorf  here  inconsistently  al- 
lows his  exegetical  judgment  to  bias  his  decision  ;  he 
prefers  utb^.  The  prevalent  belief  among  German  schol- 
ars is  that  6e6<:  is  the  true  reading.  It  seems  very  hard 
to  believe — "  the  only  begotten  God." 

VII.  John  iii,  13.  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven."  This  is  omitted  in  A,  B,  L,  and  33.  Westcott 
and  Hort,  Tischendorf,  ei  al.,  reject  it.;  Scrivener  glories 
over  retaining  it.     The  verse  is  genuine  and  important. 

VIII.  Acts  viii,  37.  Philip  and  the  eunuch.  This 
verse  is  opposed  lo  the  combination  of  all   lines   of  evi- 


37 

dence.  It  occurs  in  one  uncial,  a  few  cursives,  some  old 
Latin  and  the  Vulo^ate  versions,  and  is  quoted  by  several 
Latin  fathers.     It  has  the  very  slenderest  testimony. 

IX.  Acts  XX,  28.  "  The  church  of  God,''  etc.  This 
is  a  very  good  case  of  balanced  external  evidence,  and 
of  the  application  of  the  principles  of  internal  evidence. 
Some  favor  dzou,  some  xopcdb.  Ancient  testimony'  ex- 
cludes the  double  reading,  althougli  it  is  in  the  mass  of 
the  later  cursives,  and  it  is  rejected  in  the  common  text. 
Now,  ^which  reading  best  accounts  for  the  other  ? 
"  Church  of  God  "  is  the  more  difficult;  and  it  would 
account  for  "  Church  of  the  Lord."  On  the  other  hand, 
opposed  to  the  principle  of  internal  evidence  is  the  fact 
that  xofjcoi)  is  strongly  in  analogy  with  the  style  of 
Scripture.  We  do  not  read  of  the  blood  of  God.  Here 
is  a  case  where  critics  cannot  agree.  Good  judgment 
says  xupioi). 

X.  I  John,  V,  7,  8,  is  now  universally  rejected.  The 
scanty  evidence  in  its  favor  is  all  Latin,  and  even  that 
not  earlier  than  the  4th  century.  Scrivener  thinks  it  is 
a  gloss  which  arose  in  ISTorth  Africa.  There  has  been  a 
great  theological  fight  over  this,  but  nowadays  it  is  con- 
ceded that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  rests  on  other 
foundations. 

XI.  I  Tim.  iii,  16.  For  deo:;  there  are  various  read- 
ings, o'c  and  0.  This  illustrates  two  principles.  All  the 
oldest  testimony  is  for  a  relative  rather  than  deo^.  Many 
MSS.,  the  Slavonic  version  and  the  later  Greek  fathers 
favor  dso:;.  Thus  the  mass  of  early  testimony  is  for  a 
relative.  Now,  is  it  oc  or  o?  The  testimony  of  the 
early  Greek  witnesses  is  mostl}'  for  the  masculine;  and 
when  we  take  into  consideration  that  oc  is  the  harder 
reading,  that  o  would  be  more  likely  to  arise  out  of  o'c, 
than  the  converse,  and  that  the  reading  o'c  best  accounts 
for  the  existence  of  both  the  other  readings,  we  conclude 
that  oc  is  the  true  reading. 

XII.  I  Peter,  iii,  15.  The  question  here  is  whether 
we  are  to  read  "  God"  or  "  Christ."  For  "  God  "  we 
have  only  authorities  after  the  9th  century  ;  while  for 
the  reading  "  Christ  "  we  have  the  most  preponderating 
evidence.     The  apostle  is  quoting  from   Isaiah  viii,  13, 


38 

whicli  is  a  strong  proof  from  Peter  that  Christ  is  God, 
On  such  points  the  LXX.  is  at  variance  with  both  the  N. 
T.  and  the  Hebrew  text. 

CHAPTER  V. 

History  of  the  English  Bible. 

[See  an  admirable  sketch  by  B.  F.  Westcott  on  the 
External  and  Internal  History  of  the  Bible;  and  Dr. 
Eadie-1878— a  larger  and  fuller  history  of  the  Bible, 
giving  more  internal  comparisons.]  ^ 

Westcott's  book  is  the  first  attempt  to  exhibit  the 
internal  history  of  the  version,  by  showing  by  compari- 
son the  dependence  of  each  step  on  the  preceding  step. 
He  devotes  his  strength  chiefly  to  the  internal  examina- 
tion of  the  various  transactions,  showing  by  actual  com- 
parison what  they  contain  of  previous  labor,  how  much 
of  continental  work,  how  much  of  Luther,  how  much 
of  the  Swiss  Bible,  etc.  The  term  growth  is  appropri- 
ate to  our  Bible ;  it  is  acknowledged  by  English-speak- 
ing scholars  that  our  version  is  the  best — and  it  is  the 
work,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  the  church.  It  gathere«l 
int'-)  itself  the  whole  scholarship  of  the  times — of  the 
continent,  as  well  as  of  England.  The  fact  that  it  took 
"  England  a  century  to  do  what  Luther  did  alone,"  ac- 
counts for  its  excellence.  The  history  of  the  Bible  is 
the  history  of  the  church.  It  sprung  from  the  simple, 
practical  purpose  of  giving  the  people  the  Word  as  the 
means  of  their  spiritual  life.  Its  history  is  associated 
singularly  with  the  martyrdom  of  its  defenders.  Tyn- 
dale  was  strangled  ;  Calvin  was  persecuted,  and  Cran- 
mer,  who  left  us  the  English  Psalter,  was  blessed  with  a 
death  of  triumphant  agony. 

During  the  darkest  period  of  the  Romish  corrup- 
tions, as  early  as  the  8th  century,  the  Psalms  had  been 
translated  into  Anglo-Saxon,  and  Bede  had  translated 
the  Gospel  of  John,  completing  the  last  sentence  on  the 
day  of  his  death.  In  the  9th  century  Alfred  translated 
the  ten  commandments;  in  the  10th,  the  Gospels,  and 
several  books  of  the  O.  T.  were  translated ;  and  after 
the  Norman  invasion  a  fragmentary  translation  of  the 
N.  T.  and  Psalms  was  continued. 


39 

In  the  14th  centuiy  the  struggle  for  life  began.  Three 
translations  of  the  Psalter  were  made  in  the  early  part 
of  that  century.  AH  these  MSS.  were  prior  to  the  art 
of  printing.  In  1356  Wicklifte  finished  the  N.  T.,  and 
in  1384  the  whole  Bible,  making  his  version  from  the 
Vulgate.  Being  in  many  particulars  unsatisfactory,  it 
was  revised  in  1388  by  John  Purvey — still  from  the 
Vulgate.  This  Bible  was  widely  circulated  among  all 
classes.  Both  versions  were  frequently  copied,  many  of 
them  of  small  size  for  convenient  carriage,  and  some  of 
those  copies  are  still  extant.  They  were  driven  out  of 
circulation  into  the  libraries.  To  these  facts  we  owe  the 
evidence  of  contemporaneous  literature.  Chancer,  and 
the  whole  class  of  English  authors;  the  MSS.  have  been 
preserved,  though  many  pi'inted  editions  have  passed 
away. 

But  we  have  to  do  with  the  printed  Bible  chiefly. 
Before  the  end  of  the  15th  century  the  Bible  had  been 
printed  in  Spanish,  French,  Butch  and  Bohemian.  The 
fame  of  Erasmus  as  a  teacher  of  Greek  drew  Tyndale  to 
Cambridge — 1509-24.  Tyndale  was  born  in  1484,  and 
educated  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  In  1520  he  re- 
turned to  his  native  Gloucestershire,  where  he  tilled  the 
oflice  of  private  tutor  and  chaplain  in  a  family  of  rank. 
In  controversy  with  a  Romish  priest  he  said  that  if  God 
spared  his  life  he  would,  ere  many  years,  "  cause  the  boy 
that  driveth  the  plow  to  know  more  of  the  Scriptures 
than  the  priest."  Tyndale  devoted  himself  to  this  work. 
In  his  openness  and  rashness  he  reminds  us  of  his  name- 
sake. He  came  to  London  lor  aid,  and  happened  to 
preach  before  a  London  alderman  who  was  attracted  by 
him,  gave  him  shelter,  and  supported  him  for  a  year  ; 
for  which  goodness  he  was  at  length  thrown  into  the 
Tower.  After  a  while  Tyndale  retired  to  Hamburg  on  the 
continent.  In  1524  he  published  the  Gospels;  passing 
on  to  Colossians,  he  finished  the  whole  N.  T.,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  finish  a  tine  quarto  edition,  when  the  Dutch 
scholars  heard  of  it.  He  escaped  with  his  prepared 
sheets  to  Worms,  where  he  commenced  a  small  octavo. 
Both  editions  reached  England  in  1526,  and  were  im- 
mediately proscribed  by  Henry  VIII.     The  translation 


40 

was  attacked  as  monstrous  and  unscholarly,  and  burned. 
By  1530  six  editions  had  been  introduced.  Of  15,000 
there  remained  of  the  first  edition  only  a  fragment;  of 
the  second,  one  copy  and  a  fragment;  of  all  the  rest  only 
two  or  three  copies,  so  great  was  the  persecution  it  re- 
ceived. But  Tyndale,  on  the  continent,  was  still  manu- 
facturing more.  In  1530  he  completed  the  Pentateuch, 
and  in  '34  the  book  of  Jonah.  In  1536  a  revised  edition 
of  the  N.  T.,  on  which  he  had  begun  labor,  was  finished. 
A  cop3'  which  belonged  to  Anne  Boleyn  is  still  extant. 
In  1536  the  first  edition  was  published  in  England,  the 
year  of  Tyndale's  death.  While  in  prison  he  revised  the 
N.  T.  for  another  edition,  a  few  copies  of  which  remain. 
Tyndale  was  heroic,  humane,  a  true  genius,  and  a  man 
of  fine  scholarship.  His  single  purpose  of  making  the 
Bible  plain  to  the  peojile  renders  his  work  permanent  ; 
it  is  to-day  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  our  Bible  is 
substantially  Tyndale's,  This  point  is  clearly  made  out 
by  Westcott  in  his  exhibition  of  the  internal  history  of 
Tyndale's  Bible  and  those  that  succeed  it.  The  impor- 
tant part  of  Westcott's  work  is  the  collation.  Marsh 
states  that  Tyndale's  Bible  is  a  revision  of  Wicklifte's; 
but  this  is  a  natural  mistake  to  make  ;  and,  again,  the 
enemies  of  Tyndale  had  a  motive  in  depreciating  his 
work.  Thomas  More  said  it  was  simply  a  reproduction 
of  Luther's  Bible.  There  is  conclusive  proof  to  the 
contrary,  however.  1.  Tyndale  never  went  to  Wittem- 
berg  at  all.  2.  It  is  true  that  his  Bible  was  published 
after  Luther's,  but  he  had  long  before  consecrated  him- 
self to  the  work.  3.  Tyndale's  own  statement  was  that 
he  was  not  helped  by  any  one.  4.  He  had  the  necessary 
skill,  for  this  is  evinced  by  his  scholarly  notes.  5.  West- 
cott compares  Tyndale's  Bible  with  the  Vulgate,  Luther 
and  the  original  Greek,  and  shows  that  it  was  direct  from 
the  Greek.  6.  As  to  its  dependence  on  Wicklifte,  the 
slightest  comparison  shows  there  was  no  such  depend- 
ence. The  aid  of  most  service  to  Tyndale  was  the  Latin 
translation  of  Erasmus.  Tyndale  had  been  educated 
under  Erasn:ius  chiefly.  It  is  perfectly  clear  from  inter- 
nal comparison  that  this  Latin  translation  was  of  more 
assistance  to  him   than  any  other;   but,  after  all,  it  was 


41 

used  as  we  would  use  another  version,  or  a  commentary, 
merely  for  assistance.  Still  the  charge  of  Tyndale's  de- 
pendence npon  Lnther  has  a  certain  color,  while  the 
originality  of  his  tran_slation  is  clearly  proved.  Passa- 
ges of  Tyndale's  preface  are  avowedly  taken  from  Luther, 
80  with  the  prologues,  etc. 

A  brief  examination  of  Tyndale's  version  will  show 
how  much  of  our  Bible  he  furnishes.  Westcott  esti- 
mates numerically  that  in  the  Epistle  of  I  John  -^^  are 
Tyndale;  of  Ephesians,  |- ;  but  these  are  high  figures. 
More  than  this,  from  first  to  last  Tyndale's  style  and  in- 
terpretation are  retained.  The  originality  of  our  ver- 
sion, its  appeal  to  the  universal  feeling  of  English 
speaking  people  everywhere,  is  largely  due  to  the  char- 
acteristics of  Tyndale's  mind.  He  establishes  a  stand- 
ard of  Biblical  translation;  his  spiritanimates  the  whole. 
His  intluence  decided  that  our  Bible  should  be  popular 
and  not  hte4Hy,  and  by  its  simplicity  it  should  be  en- 
dowed with  permanency.  His  Bible  has  had  a  conserva- 
tive effect  on  the  English,  and  has  enriched  our  lan- 
guage and  thoughts  forever  with  characteristics  of  the 
SSeraite  mind. 

Next  is  Coverdale's  Bible.  In  1534  a  convocation  of 
Canterbury  under  Cranmer,  prayed  the  king  that  the 
Bible  might  be  translated  for  tlie  people;  Coverdale 
w^as  appointed  for  this  work  under  the  patronage  of  Sir 
Thomas  More  and  Cromwell.  The  best  of  Coverdale  is 
no  doubt  chiefly  Tyndale,  although  he  used  several 
other  versions;  he  introduces  changes  upon  Tyndale 
from  these  and  other  sources.  He  makes  no  pretense  to 
going  back  to  the  original  text ;  his  work  was  only  a 
contribution  to  the  future  version  of  the  English  nation. 
Coverda  e  had  great  taste,  nevertheless,  and  contributed 
many  of  the  happiest  expressions  to  our  Bible,  as  well 
as  better  arrangement  and  general  smoothness  of  ver- 
sion. He  also  restored  to  the  English  version  the  ec- 
clesiastical terms  which  Tyndale  had  removed  in  trans- 
lation— terms  which,  if  translated,  must  be  translated 
for  every  sect.  Where  they  cover  common  grounds, 
the  translation  is  Tyndale  as  amended  by  Coverdale.  He 
retained  the   psalter  and  liturgy    unchanged.     His  first 


42 

edition  was  printed  in  1635,  and  dedicated  to  the  king. 
It  was  never  formallj-  authorized,  nor  was  the  second, 
hut  through  the  inliuence  of  Crumwell  the  opposition  to 
it  was  removed. 

The  next,  Matthew's  Bible,  has  a  curious  history. 
Tyndale  had  left  a  translation  extending  from  Joshua  to 
II  Chronicles.  With  this  and  Tyndale's  Pentateuch, 
Coverdale's  remaining  books  of  the  O.  T.,  and  Tyndale's 
N.  T.,  Matthew  made  a  composite  Bible.  Tyndale's  1535 
edition  was  the  basis  of  his  N.  T.  He  made  no  attempt 
at  revision.  Some  suppose  that  "Matti.ew"  was  a 
pseudonym.  The  im])ortance  of  Matthew's  Bible  may 
be  due  to  its  being  the  first  authorized  by  the  crown. 
Cranmer  was  influential  in  this.  Henry  sanctioned  it, 
though  he  knew  that  it  was  substantially  the  very  same 
Bible  he  had  previously  condemned.  This  became  the 
basis  of  all  subsequent  versions  until  our  own,  75  years 
later. 

The  fourth  on  the  list  was  the  Great  Bible.  As  Mat- 
thew's Bible  was  found  to  contain  doubtful  passages, 
Crumwell  decided  on  a  revision.  The  work  was  begun 
in  Paris,  but  afterwards  transferred  to  London,  where 
it  was  carried  through  by  Cranmer  and  Crumwell. 
This  is  the  Great  Bible  of  which  we  read  such  graphic 
accounts  of  crowds  collecting  around  the  readers.  A 
copy  was  placed  in  every  church.  There  were  six  edi- 
tions, 1610-41.  Owing  to  the  disgrace  of  Crumwell  and 
his  execution,  the  last  two  bear  the  names  of  Tunstal 
and  Heath  ;  Tunstal,  who  now  comes  to  put  his  name 
on  the  finished  edition,  although  he  had  so  persecuted 
Tyndale.  Again,  Westcott  shows  Coverdale's  revision 
of  the  N.  T.,  and  that  they  relied  on  the  Latin  version 
chiefly  for  the  O.  T.  In  the  N.  T.  the  revision  was  aided 
by  Erasmus.  In  I  John  there  are  71  variations  from 
Tyndale;  43  of  them  are  from  Coverdale,  17  from  the 
Vulgate,  and  the  rest  are  from  other  sources.  The  orig- 
inal basis  remains  substantially. 

A  period  of  reaction  came,  and  in  1543  private  read- 
ing of  the  Scriptures  was  prohibited.  There  was  a 
great  destruction  of  Bibles.  Of  the  copies  which  escaped 
many  have  the  title  pages  torn  out.     In  1547  Henry  died. 


> 


43 

With  the  accession  of  Henry  VI.  came  a  reaction  the 
other  way.  During:  his  rei^n  of  six  years  13  editions  of 
the  Bihle  and  35  of  the  N.  T.  were  issued,  and  private 
reading  was  enjoined.  During  Mary's  reign,  of  course, 
there  was  no  English  edition  issued.  Cranmer  and 
Rodgers  were  martyred  ;  Coverdale  and  others  escaped 
to  the  continent.  But  in  1557  the  refugees  put  forth  the 
N,  T.,  and  in  1560  the  Bible,  which  became  the  house- 
hold edition.  This  persecution 'did  much  to  further  the 
work. 

The  Bible  prepared  by  the  English  refugees  in  Gen- 
eva, is  the  Genevan  Bible.  In  1557  the  brother-in- 
law  of  Calvin  published  the  'N.  T.,  and  in  1560  the 
whole  Bible  was  dedicated  to  the  Queen.  The  founda- 
tion of  this  version  was  the  Great  Bible  corrected  by  the 
labor  of  Swiss  theological  students — Beza  especially. 
At  the  same  time  in  which  the  work  was  going  on  in 
Geneva,  Calvin  was  revising  the  French  Bible.  The  N". 
T.  of  the  Genevan  Bible  was  simply  that  of  Tyndale 
amended  by  the  labors  of  Beza  and  his  coadjutors.  This 
Bible  had  a  curious  history;  it  was  a- small  quarto;  it 
was  the  first  to  use  the  Roman  letter,  and  the  first  in 
which  the  verses  were  separated  in  printing,  as  had  been 
done  in  the  Greek  of  Stephens'  edition.  It  was  furnish- 
ed with  copious  notes,  and  was  carefully  edited  by  'fine 
scholars.  It  continued  to  be  the  household  Bible  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century. 

The  Bishop's  Bible.  In  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  there  were  two  rival  Bibles.  That  of  Geneva  was 
practically  the  Bible,  but  the  Great  Bible  was  the  one 
authorized  by  the  church.  The  former  was  very  much 
the  better;  it  contained  the  marginal,  doctrinal  notes  of 
the  Reformation.  But  these  notes  were  objectional  to 
the  ecclesiastics  ;  so  eight  bishops,  of  whom  Archbishop 
Parker  was  the  principal,  were  employed  to  popularize 
tlieir  Bible  and  remove  the  evident  errors.  This  was 
done  with  great  fidelity,  and  in  1568  the  Bishop's  Bible 
was  published  ;  and  in  1572  the  second  edition,  which 
became  the  basis  of  our  Bible.  It  was  authorized  to  be 
used  in  the  churches,  every  cathedral  and  every  church 
was  to  have  one  if  possible.     Yet  16  years  after  it   had 


44 

not  entirely  superseded  the  Great  Bible.  ]N"o  edition  of 
the  latter  was  printed  after  1569.  The  Bishop's  Bible 
never  supplanted  the  Genevan  in  the  use  of  the  people, 
so  at  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reio^n  as  at  the  beginning, 
there  were  still  two  rival  Bibles. 

King  James'  Bible.  Shortly  after  the  accession  of 
James  I  a  conference  set  on  foot  the  final  revision,  of 
which  the  king's  literarv  tastes  made  him  a  promoter. 
The  king  proposed  to  pay  for  the  labor  of  revision  by 
church  preferment  and  not  from  the  treasurj' ;  he  after- 
wards wanted  collections  to  be  taken  from  the  different 
churches  for  the  purpose  of  remunerating  the  revisers, 
but  they  were  never  paid  and  the  whole  work  was  done 
gratuitously.  About  50  scholars  were  employed  ;  these 
were  separated  into  six  companies,  and  the  several  books 
divided  between  them.  This  parcelling  out  of  the  work 
caused  some  of  the  difficulties  with  which  we  now  have 
to  contend.  Two  of  these  companies  sat  at  Westminster, 
two  at  Oxford,  two  at  Cambridge.  The  Bishop's  Bible 
was  to  be  the  text.  Each  part  of  the  work  was  to  pass 
under  review  of  the  v.hole  committee.  After  three  year's 
labor  the  Bible  was  printed  in  1611  by  Richard  Barker. 
It  was  nearly  50  years  after  the  issue  of  the  authorized 
version  that  the  Genevan  Bible  was  finally  displaced,  in 
the  troubles  during  which  the  throne  was  perverted,  and 
the  Genevan  Bible,  which  was  acceptable  to  the  domi- 
nant party,  was  nevertheless  excb.anged  for.  the  author- 
ized version — though  the  Genevan  had  been  the  house- 
hold Bible  of  that  very  party  for  three-quarters  of  a 
century.  The  term  authorized  version  is  uniformly  ap- 
plied to  King  James'  version  of  1611,  although  there  is 
no  evidence  that  it  was  ever  publicly  sanctioned.  It 
gained  currency  by  the  intiuence  of  church  and  state 
combined,  and  by  its  own  merits.  It  borrowed  the  title 
"  authorized."  It  is  not  generally  known  that  many 
improvements,  chiefly  in  language,  were  adopted  from 
the  Catholic  version  into  that  of  King  James.  Beza  and 
the  Genevan  Bible  were  useful  in  interpretation.  Casps 
are  rare  in  which  the  authorized  version  goes  back  of  an 
earlier  English  Bible.  Considerable  progress  had  by 
this  time  been  made  in  scholarship;  e.  g.,  in  Isaiah  LIII 


45 

there  is  scarcely  a  verse  which  does  not  exhibit  skill  and 
accuracy  of  the  revisers.  As  the  edition  of  1611  con- 
tained many  errors  of  the  press,  tliat  of  1638  has  been 
adopted  by  the  Bible  societies  ever  since.  The  Cam- 
bridge edition  of  1638,  tlien,  is  the  best  standard  edition 
of  the  English  Bible.  So  our  Bible  is  the  work,  not  of 
one  man  but  of  the  church,  and  of  a  century.  Looking 
back  we  may  satisfy  ourselves  that  the  substance  and 
the  spirit  are  Tyndale's,  revised  and  corrected  by  the 
scholarship  of  a  century.  Seven-eighths  of  Tyndale's 
version  we  still  have. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Reasons  for  Revision. 
\^See    Trench,   EUicot^  and  Lightfoot.~\ 

This  matter  of  revision  is  based  on  two  considera- 
tions, the  text  and  the  translation.  I  have  said  all  I 
have  to  say  on  the  text.  The  real  necessity  for  correct- 
ing the  translation  exists  where  doctrine  is  affected. 
Now,  there  are  no  cases  where  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
is  affected  as  to  its  authority,  but  the  doctrine  of  a  par- 
ticular clause  may  be.  If  we  were  to  cut  out  any  disputed 
point  it  would  not  affect  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  The 
charge  that  the  Bible  translation  as  we  have  it  was  made 
to  favor  Calvinistic  doctrine  is  unfair. 

The  translation  of  Romans  v,  15,  17,  18,  19,  Bentley 
says,  opens  the  wa}^  for  mistakes.  Upon  the  true  trans- 
lation of  this  passage  Universalism  bases  itself  to  a  great 
extent.  That  drops  the  article  in  each  case,  "the  many," 
"  the  one,"  etc.  Now,  commentators  agree  that  "  the 
many  "  are  antitheses  to  "  the  one."  Sentence  of  death 
was  passed  upon  all  men,  for  all  men  sin;  the  grace  of 
Jesus  Christ  hath  abounded  unto  "  the  many."  So  again 
in  the  18th  verse,  "  the  many  "  shall  be  made  righteous. 
This  passage  teaches  Universalism  when  pushed  to  the 
extreme.  Words  actually  were  dropped  out  to  free  it 
from  this  difficulty  ;  but  this  is  tampering  with  inspira- 
tion. The  difficulty  is  to  be  guarded  against  by  exegesis, 
1.  from  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels,  and  2.  by  limiting 


46 

the  univers'-il  terms  by  the  idea  of  the  context.  If  many 
are  dead,  that  implies  that  all  are  not.  Universalism  on 
one  side  and  limited  atonement  on  the  other.  The  pas- 
sage is  easier  in  the  Greek  than  in  the  English. 

I  Cor.  xi,  2'J,  is  a  fruitful  source  of  superstitious  fear 
at  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  word  proba- 
bly never  means  damjiation,  though  so  translated  six  times. 
The  condemnation  is  limited  to  the  specific  sin  of  un- 
worthily partaking;  he  condemns  himself  because  he 
discerns  not  the  Lord's  body.  This  removes  a  difficulty 
which  has  been  an  injury  to  our  Bible. 

Hebrews  x,  38.  Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith;  but 
if  ani/  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in 
him.  "  Any  man  "  is  supplied,  whereas  the  obvious  con- 
struction makes  dixacor  the  subject.  This  seemed  to 
Coverdale,  Cranmer  and  Tyndale  to  imply  that  the  just 
might  apostatize.  Three  considerations  favor  a  strict 
rendering  :  1.  The  verse  is  quoted  from  the  lxx,  and  the 
quotation  inverts  the  clauses  to  avoid  the  mistake.  2. 
Analogy  favors  it ;  e.  g.,  Heb.  vi,  where  the  possibility 
of  falling  from  grace  is  discussed.  3.  Strict  grammati- 
cal principles  ;  where  the  grammatical  construction  is 
perfect  we  have  no  right  to  supply  a  subject.  The  change 
was  made  here  for  doctrinal  purpose. 

Acts  ii,  47.  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily 
such  as  should  be  saved.  The  participle  is  not  the  future 
passive.  The  charge  is  made  that  our  translators  altered 
the  text  for  the  sake  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination. 
We  cannot  translate  that  into  English,  but  have  to  para- 
phrase it.  A  great  deal  has  been  made  of  this  passage. 
The  last  two  passages  are  relied  upon  as  proof  of  Cal- 
vinistic  bias  against  Armiuianism,  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  it  in  either  of  them. 

Coloss.  ii,  15,  The  term  "  spoiled  "  is  peculiarly  un- 
fortunate here,  for  English  readers  seeing  the  word 
twice  would  suppose  it  to  mean  the  same  in  both  cases. 
The  word  so  translated  liere  means  to  strip  off  from  one's 
self,  having  always  the  force  of  the  middle.  Ilaving  di- 
vested himself  of  these  before  mentioned  principalities 
and  powers,  etc.  The  omission  of  the  article  is  also  un- 
warrantable. 


47 

Jolm  X,  16.  Here  is  an  uiuuteiitional  inistrPiislatic^n 
of  fold  instead  of  flock,  spoiling  the  strong  alliteration 
at  the  end  of  the  verse.  He  means  to  say  there  shall  be 
one  flock  of  many  folds.  Bishop  Ellicott's  bitter  zeal 
is  uncalled-for;  he  insinnates  that  some  have  inserted 
errors  to  suit  their  ideas  of  orthddox}'.  Calvinism  did 
not  base  itself  on  the  English  version  of  tlie  Bible. 

Matthew  xxiii,  24  contains  printers'  mistakes.  So 
Matt.  X,  4.  Acts  ii,  3,  should  read  distributed,  not  c/.ovtm. 
I  Thess,  V.  22.  Abstain  from  appearance  of  evil.  The 
Genevan  Bible  has  "  all  kinds  of  evil."  Ephesians  iv, 
18.  Because  of  the  blindness  of  their  hearts.  "  Blind- 
ness "  should  be  "hardness."  All  such  errors  will  be 
removed  in  revision. 

Minor  Inaccuracies.  Care  should  be  taken  against 
loss  of  idiom.  For  instance,  the  genitive  of  qualjty  is 
often  translated  by  an  adjective  ;  e.  g.,  "  the  children  of 
disobedience  "  is  stronger  than  "  disobedient  children." 
The  moods  and  tenses  are  to  be  carefully  noted.  The 
prepositions  have  been  translated  with  a  looseness  for 
which  there  is  no  excuse;  iu  has  suffered  especially,  So 
with  the  ])articles  d/2d,  di  and  xaL  So  with  the  article, 
e.  g.,  "  Whosoever  marrieth  her  that  is  divorced,"  etc. 
The  Greek  has  no  "  her  that  is."  We  have  no  right  to 
introduce  so  limiting  a  word.  "  The  love  of  money  is 
the  root  of  all  evil."  Paul  does  not  say  that;  he  says  it 
is  a  root  of  all  evil.  In  the  4th  ch.  of  Romans  the  same 
word  is  translated  "counted,"  "reckoned,"  "imputed." 
"  These  shall  go  into  everlasting  punishment,  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal.'''  This  is  an  example  of  obscur- 
ing parallels  by  difterent  translations  of  the   same  word. 

The  idea  of  this  revision  is  not  to  change  everything 
at  once.  The  version  must  bear  the  test  of  time.  Pro- 
bably a  generation  will  pass  away -before  it  will  recom- 
mend itself  as  to  supersede  the  familiar  vernacular. 
The  generation  of  ministers  to  which  you  belong  will  be 
very  busy  in  the  matter. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

History  of  the   Canon. 
The  several  parts  of  the   N.  T.  were  composed   by  8 
difterent  persons  in   the  space  of  about  50  years.     Now 


48 

how  were  thej  brought  together  ?  Our  sources  of  infor- 
mation are  very  few.  The  earliest  references  are  to  the 
separate  books  rather  than  to  the  N.  T.  .as  a  whole.  In 
support  of  its  early  collection  we  may  notice,  1.  The 
reverence  of  the  early  church  for  the  written  word. 
Their  possession  of  the  O.  T.  made  the  idea  of  a  collec- 
tion of  books  familiar  to  them,  and  prepared  them  to 
accept  the  N.  T.  2.  The  separate  writings  of  the  N.  T. 
itself  contain  few  intimations  of  the  new  collection,  yet 
they  claim  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God.  That 
claim  is  implied  where  it  is  not  explicitly  made.  I.  Tim., 
iv.  1;  II  Tliess.,  iii,  6;  Rev.,  xxii,  19;  I  Thess.,  v,  37 
Coloss.,  iv.  16,  contains  the  first  intimation  we  have  in 
the  N".  T.  itself  of  a  collection  of  the  canon.  The  whole 
character  of  the  writing  proves  them  to  have  been  in- 
tended for  permanent  and  universal  use.  II.  Peter,  iii, 
16,  is  the  first  distinct  application  of  the  term  Scri[tture 
to  the  N.  T.  writings.  This  is  also  the  only  reference  to 
a  collection  of  Paul's  epistles.  3.  Controversy  with  the 
heretics  made  it  imperative  to  settle  the  canon.  The 
gradual  collection  afforded,  also,  opportunity  for  apocry- 
phal writings.     4.  The  persecutions  they  suffered. 

The  historj'  of  the  formation  of  the  canon  is  com- 
monly divided  into  three  periods: 

I.  The  period  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  or  contem- 
poraries of  the  Apostles,  from  the  first  writing  to  120 
A.  D.,  about  70  years. 

II.  The  period  of  the  Apologists,  120-170  A.  T).  At 
the  close  of  this  period  is  the  Peshito. 

III.  From  170  A.  D.  to  the  close  of  the  4th  century, 
the  period  of  Formal  Catalogues  of  the  various  Fathers. 

There  are  three  kinds  of  evidence  given  by  the 
Apostolic  Fathers.  1.  They  presuppose  the  canonical 
Scriptures;  the  literature  of  that  period — the  first  three- 
quarters  2d  century — cannot  be  accounted  for  unless 
there  did  exist  such  a  book  as  the  N,  T.  This  is  largely 
ignored  by  the  Rationalists.  They  say  that,  2.  The 
father  must  quote  the  ipsissima  verba  ;  they  make  a  great 
deal  of  the  fact  that  we  have  only  three  express  quota- 
tions, viz :  one  by  Clement  of  Rome ;  one  by  Ignatius 
of  Smyrna,   and  one    by  Polycarp   of  Smyrna.     3.  We 


49 

have  (a)  quotations  of  tlie  very  words  of  Scriptures,  and 
(b)  coincidences  of  lan2:nage  and  thought  not  amounting 
to  direct  quotation.  The  Rationalists  say  that  these 
quotations  are  very  informal,  and  not  preceded  by  the 
formula — "  it  is  written."  But  we  find  b,y  reading 
them  that  they  are  quoted  as  authority,  as  final  appeal. 
Allusions  are  thus  made  to  all  the  N".  T.  books  except 
Jude,  II  Peter  and  II  and  III  John. 

Conclusion — All  this  argues  in  favor  of  a  collection. 
If  a  writer  in  one  part  of  the  church  quotes  three  or 
four  N".  T.  books,  and  another  writer  the  same  and 
others,  each  must  have  had  access  to  a  canon  more  or 
less  complete. 

II.  The  period  of  the  ai)ologists  extending  from  120- 
170,  is  mostly  lost  to  us  except  us  fragments  have  been 
preserved  in  Eusebius.  The  principal  bearing  of  the 
testimony  of  this  period  is  upon  the  Gospels.  The 
epistles,  especially  those  of  Paul,  have  a  more  ancient 
authentication,  as  the  disputes  on  doctrinal  points,  which 
gave  rise  to  the  epistles,  would  naturally  bring  them  into 
attention  first,  for  the  facts  of  Gospel  history  were  al- 
ready known,  having  been  conveyed  by  oral  teaching. 
In  the  second  period,  which  is  one  of  the  greatest  obscur- 
ity, we  find  the  first  recognition  of  the  Gospels  by  name^ 

Among  the  persons  who  date  about  this  time,  and 
whose  lives  yuu  ought  to  read,  is  Papias,  of  Hierapolis 
in  Phrygia,  said  by  some  to  have  been  a  deciple  of 
John,  but  by  others  to  have  associated  with  the  elder 
John  of  Ephesus.  He  lived  until  the  middle  of  the  2d 
century.  He  speaks  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  re- 
ferences are  found  to  I  John,  I  Peter,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse; a  testimony  which  is  disputed  because  he  does 
not  refer  to  the  epistles  of  Paul,  some  supposing  that 
the  school  of  John  passed  into  the  school  of  Paul.  But 
reason  for  this  omission  can  be  shown  in  the  purpose  of 
Papias  to  collect  material  from  those  who  had  seen  or 
heard  Christ, 

Almost  the  foremost  name  is  that  of  Justin  Martyr, 
the  great  apologist  of  146  A.  D.,  of  Flavia  Keapolis, 
near  the  ancient  Shechem.  Of  his  numerous  writings 
only  two  apologies  and  a  dialogue  are  undisputed.     The 


50 

name  under  which  he  refers  to  the  Gospels  is  disputed — 
"  Memorials  of  the  Apostles."  By  the  account  which 
he  gives  it  is  believed  that  he  can  refer  to  our  four  Gos- 
pels, and  to  these  only.  Writings  "  composed,"  he  says, 
"  in  part  by  the  Apostles,  in  part  by  their  companions, 
called  Gospels,  and  admitted  by  the  church  generall3^" 
Besides  the  Gospels  he  refers  by  name  to  only  the  Apo- 
calypse. In  the  course  of  his  controversy  he  evinces 
clear  acquaintance  with  several  of  Paul's  epistles. 
Hermus,  Irenaeus,  etc.,  I  will  at  present  defer. 
In  addition  to  these  is  the  testimony  borne  by  here- 
tics. For  the.  most  part  they  do  not  disavow  the  au- 
thority of  the  canon,  at  least  not  the  idea  of  canonicity. 
They  refer  to  the  books  and  quote  them  ;  when  the 
doctrine  does  not  suit  them  they  claim  that  they  are  not 
apostolic,  and  have  made  books  to  suit  themselves  out  of 
canon  ;  but  that  does  not  interfere  with  the  testimony  as 
to  what  were  the  books  of  the  church.  This  is  a  strong 
corroboration  of  the  truth  of  canon.  Among  the  Jiames 
familiar  are  the  Gnostics  ;  125  A.  D.,  Basilides;  140  A. 
D.,  Marcion.  The  first  to  begin  a  list  of  the  canon  was 
a  Gentile  Gnostic,  who  made  a  new  canon  for  himself, 
but  all  the  while  gave  evidence  of  wha  was  the  canon 
of  the  church. 

The  N.  T.  books  do  not  always  appear  in  the  same 
order.  The  four  Gospels  occur  in  the  order  we  have  in 
a  large  number  of  the  MSS.  and  the  Fathers.  Some  of 
the  MSS.  of  Beza  put  John  second  to  Matthew;  some 
give  great  weight  of  authoritj-  to  Acts  ;  in  the  Sinaitic, 
Acts  follows  Paul — a  natural  change,  for  in  division  for 
readings  the  Acts  belongs  with  the  epistles,  and  might 
be  put  either  first  or  last ;  in  another  one  the  Acts  ap- 
pears after  the  Apocal3'pse.  Of  the  epistles  of  Paul  and 
the  seven  Catholic  epistles,  Eusebius  puts  l*aul  first;  so 
the  Latin  church  follow  him.  The  weight  of  ancient 
MSS.  authority  puts  the  Catholic  epistles  first;  the  Sin. 
MSS.  gives  our  order,  and  this  is  the  oldest  confirmation 
of  the  Eusebian  arrangement  we  have.  The  order  of 
the  epistles  of  Paul  among  themselves  varies  less  in  the 
MSS.  than  in  the  fathers;  A,  B,  and  C  put  Hebrews  im- 
mediately after  Thessalonians  and  are  followed   by   Ath- 


51 

anasius  and  the  Council  of  Laodicea ;  doubts  have  ex- 
isted as  to  its  Pauline  origin,  but  this  seems  to  ascribe 
it  to  Paul.  What  has  been  the  reason  for  the  order  of 
the  Pauline  epistles  among  themselves  does  not  satisfac- 
torily appear,  for  no  discovered  principle  of  classifica- 
tion governs  it.  The  order  of  length  is  suggested  ;  or 
that  the  fundamental  epistle  comes  first,  etc",  but  there 
is  no  principle  that  will  go  through  all  the  facts.  They 
were  certainly  not  arranged  in  chronological  order.  The 
Catholic  epistles  are  arranged  almost  uniformly  as  in  the 
received  text.  'Now  this  variety  is  precisely  what  we 
should  expect  from  the  manner  in  which  the  canon  was 
collected.  It  confirms  the  belief  that  there  was  no  author- 
ized edition  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Special  Introddction  to  the  Gospels. 

[See  Westcott's  Introduction  to  the  Gospels,  5th  edition,  and  Why  Four 
Gospels,  by  Dr.  Gregory,  of  Wooster,  Ohio.] 

Titles.  The  titles  of  the  Go!^pels,  though  found  in 
the  oldest  MSS.,  are  probably  not  genuine.  This  is  ex- 
pressly stated  by  some  of  the  fathers,  e.  g.,  Chrysostoni 
says  :  "  Moses  wrote  five  books,  and  nowhere  affixed  his 
name,  nor  did  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  or  John."  There 
was  little  need  of  them  in  collecting  the  canons.  In 
other  books  the  titles  vary,  but  in  the  Gospels  they  are 
always  uniform.  It  is  extremely  probable  that  the  in- 
spired writers  themselvesgave  them  the  name  of  Gospels. 
Euu-yyehov  is  applied  by  Chrj'sostom  to  historj* ;  it  means, 
literally,  "  good  tidings,"  and  is  used  in  the  Odyssey  for 
the  messenger  who  brings  good  news;  in  the  plural  it 
means  thank  offerings ;  the  Sept.  first  gives  it  as  good 
news.  In  the  E".  T.  it  signifies;  1.  Good  news  of  salva- 
tion, or  of  Christ's  appearance;  2.  History  of  his  saving 
truth;  but  in  the  IS".  T.  the  word  is  not  applied  to  the 
books  but  to  the  subject  matter  contained.  In  the  titles, 
however,  prefixed  to  the  books,  it  is  used  evidently  in 
this  sense.  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,"  im- 
plies the  existence  of  other  Gospels.  Irenaeus  calls  it 
the  Ii'ourfold  Gospel. 


52 

Turning  to  the  Gospel  According  to  Matthew,  the 
first  question  is,  Who  is  the  author?  The  title  has  its 
value  though  not  a  part  of  the  inspired  text.  A  very 
ancient  and  uniform  tradition  ascribest  it  to  Matthew, 
the  authorship  being  no  less  uniformly  established  than 
the  canonicity.  Of  the  personal  history  of  Matthew 
little  is  known  ;  he  himself  mentions  only  his  call  to  the 
ministr}^  and  Luke  gives  an  account  of  the  feast  given 
by  him  in  honor  of  the  Saviour.  He  was  first  called 
Levi,  but  he  afterwards  took  a  Christian  name.  Li 
Mark  ii,  14,  his  father's  name,  Alpheus,  is  given,  from 
which  some  suppose  that  Matthew  was  cousin  to  our 
Lord  ;  but  this  is  otherwise  entirely  without  foundation. 
His  calling  was  that  of  a  publican,  a  tax-gatherer,  an 
occupation  despised  by  the  Jews.  A  religious  feeling 
was  associated  with  the  payment  of  taxes  to  a  foreign 
power,  and  for  this  reason  a  Jew  who  collected  such 
taxes  was  regarded  witli  contempt.  Scarcely  from  a 
reputable  walk  in  life  was  the  first  evangelist  selected. 
One  reason  suggested  for  the  choice  of  Matthew  is  his 
proficiency  in  keeping  accounts,  etc. 

Let  us  consider  some  internal  facts.  Personal  liu- 
mility  is  characteristic  of  Matthew;  he  only  refers  to 
his  previous  occupation  ;  "  Matthew,  tlie  publican,"  oc- 
curs only  in  Matthew,  others  did  not  put  that  forward 
against  him.  Luke  says  he  left  all  for  Christ,  sacrificed 
a  position  leading  to  wealth.  Matthew  does  not  mention 
that.  He  has  an  occasion  to  give  an  account  of  the  re- 
ception given  in  his  house  to  our  Saviour,  but  he  mentions 
the  fact  without  giving  the  name  ;  he  gives  prominence 
to  the  low  esteem  in  which  publicans  were  held  in  the 
expression,  "  publicans  and  harlots."  Further  he  shows 
peculiar  sympathy  with  that  aspect  of  our  Lord's  charac- 
ter and  work,  humiliation.  The  special  characteristic  of 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  that  he  is  more  deeply  im- 
pressed with  the  sacerdotal  than  the  prophetic  or  kingly 
character  of  the  Messiah. 

fSee  an  old  book  now  gone  out  of  print,  by  a  Dutch 
Theologian,  DaCosta,  on  the  comparison  of  the  Gospels; 
it  has  to  be  taken  with  a  grain  of  salt  sometimes,  but  the 
general  outline  is  correct.] 


53 

Nothing  at  all  is  said  of  Matthew  in  tlie  book  of 
Acts,  excef)t  that  liis  name  is  given  in  the  list  of  Apos- 
tles. Traditional  notices  are  numerous  but  discordant  ; 
Irenaeus  and  Eusobius  say  that  he  preached  the  Gospel 
first  to  the  Hebrews.  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  states 
that  he  remained  in  Palestine  15  ^ears  after  the  ascen- 
sion of  our  Lord  ;  a  different  tradition  takes  him  to 
Ethiopia.  Nothing  can  be  confidently  stated  about  him 
except  that  it  is  probable  his  ministry  was  exercised 
chiefly  among  the  Jews  in  Palestine  itself  All  those 
traditions  which  relate  to  facts  occurring  in  Palestine 
are  less  satisfactory  tlian  other  forms  of  the  tradition, 
because  of  the  political  troubles  in  that  country.  60-70 
A.  J).,  was  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  greater  portion 
of  the  Apostles,  the  time  of  the  composition  of  tlie 
Gospels,  of  the  Jewish  war,  etc.  The  Alexandrian  tra- 
dition goes  up  solid  and  true  as  far  as  we  can  trace  it. 
The  best  tradition  is  from  Irenaeus,  Polycarp,  et  al., 
grouping  around  John. 

The  LANGUAGE  in  which  Matthew  wrote  origi- 
\\Q.\\y.  It  is  the  common  ancient  testimony  that  Mat- 
thew first  wrote  in  Hebrew,  but  at  last  in  the  vernacular 
of  Palestine.  This  opinion  is  commonly  held.  Skeptical 
criticism  finds  in  this  opportunity  for  their  theory  of  the 
Gospel.  Matthew,  according  to  the  testimony  of  an- 
tiquity, wrote  a  Hebrew  Gospel  ;  the  Gospel  we  have  is 
therefore  not  the  original  Matthew  ;  therefore  we  are  at 
liberty  to  judge  as  to  what  is  original  in  our  Greek  Mat- 
thew and  what  is  to  be  rejected.  The  theory  of  the 
gradual  formation  of  the  Gospels  is  largely  supported  by 
this  idea,  that  there  was  a  primitive  apostolic  nucleus  writ- 
ten by  Mark  et  al.  So  Davidson,  for  instance,  follows 
the  skeptical  criticism,  making  our  canon  formed  169  A. 
D.,  thus  giving  time  for  the  growth  of  myths  and  legends 
which  are  to  be  separated  from  the  Gospels.  The  opin- 
ion, however,  that  Matthew  wrote  originally  in  Hebrew 
is  held  by  those  who  adhere  to  the  authority  of  the 
Greek  Matthew,  by  the  supposition  that  the  Greek  is  a 
translation  by  an  inspired  man.  But  the  point  is  just 
this ;  the  whole  argument  for  its  canouicity  relates  to  it 
in  its  Greek  form  ;  so  the  question  of  the  original   Ian- 


54 

gunge  does  not  necessarily  aftect  it.  In  brief,  the  argu- 
ment for  a  tiebrew  original  derives  its  chief  supportin 
ancient  testimony  from  Papiad,  Irenaens  and  Origen,  all 
representing  that  lie  wrote  first  in  Hebrew.  Papias  says 
tliat  Matthew  made  a  collection  of  the  Ao^^a  of  our  Lord  ; 
now,  what  does  he  mean  hy  Xoyca'i  One  says,  our  Gos- 
pels ;  another,  that  he  refers  to  the  "  words  "  of  Christ. 
The  latter  is  the  opinion  of  the  skeptical  critics,  as 
Schleiermacher,  et  al.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  said  that 
X6)'ia  means  "  oracles,"  which  came  aftei'wards  to  be 
largely  synonymous  for  the  Gospels.  It  is  commonly 
held,  however,  that  Jerome  makes  the  distinct  statement 
that  Matthew  wrote  first  in  Hebrew.  Jerome  was  a 
monk  in  Bethlehem,  where  he  had  every  opportunity  to 
know.  Jerome  found  a  Hebrew  Gospel  upon  which  he 
bases  his  statement.  It  is  commonlj'  held,  according  to 
Tischendorf,  for  instance,  that  this  was  a  mistake  of  Je- 
rome's, arising  from  his  finding  a  Hebrew  version  made 
from  our  Matthew,  and  not  the  Greek  Matthew  from  it. 
Among  tlie  successors  of  the  primitive  church  there 
were  two  sects,  the  Nazarines  and  the  Ebionites,  each  of 
which  framed  a  Hebrew  Gospel  based  upon  the  original 
Gospel.  Now,  Jerome  coming  upon  the  Hebrew  Gospel, 
might  naturally  suppose  iie  had  discovered  the  original 
form  of  the  Gospel;  and  this  mistake  was  the  subject  of 
the  report  of  Papias.  And  later  in  his  life  he  speaks 
less  confidently  about  it.  It  is  furthei'  inferred  by  com- 
parison of  the  quotation  that  Jerome  makes  from  the 
Hebrew  Matthew,  to  which  nothing  corresponds  in  the 
canon  of  the  original,  that  it  was  one  of  the  sectarian, 
non-canonical  gospels.  This  illustrates  the  ancient  tes- 
timony at  least. 

The  text  of  Matthew  stands  on  precisely  the  same 
footing  as  that  of  the  other  Goepels.  Anyone  can  re- 
cognize the  difi:erence  between  reading  a  translation  and 
reading  the  original.  The  former  bears  the  impress  of 
the  latter.  This  appears  chiefly  in  quotations  from  the  O. 
T.,  which,  if  from  the  Hebrew,  would  naturally  follow 
the  Septuagint ;  the  translator  would  naturally  nse  for 
his  translation  the  Septuagint.  But  instead  of  this  the 
O.  T.  was  quoted  freely  as  the  words  happened  to  come 


55 

into  the  nieinory,  sometimes  from  the  Sept.,  sometimes 
fron^  the  Hebiew,  sometimes  altered  considerably. 

Finally,  ti.e  Greek  language  was  so  generally  under- 
stood in  Palestine,  so  universal  a  medium  of  communi- 
cation, as  to  render  a  Hebrew  Gospel  unnecessary.  The 
sum  (^f  the  whole  matter,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  is 
that  the  Greek  Gospel  is  tlie  original  ;  there  is  no  trace 
of  the  Hebrew  left  if  any  ever  existed. 

Date  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  I  feel,  in  entering 
upon  this  subject,  as  if  I  were  going  to  sea,  it  is  so  in- 
terminable. I  can  only  sketch  for  you  a  few  of  the 
salient  facts  whicli  may  be  some  in<ntement  and  some- 
what of  a  guide  to  your  own  reading.  The  authority  of 
the  Gospels  depends  upon  their  proved  date  ;  the  church 
theory  of  the  canon  is  based  upon  their  apostolic  au- 
thority. It  is  a  skeptical  assertion  that  there  is  no  his- 
torical proof  of  the  Gosp'^ls,  in  the  form  we  now  liave, 
until  late  in  the  2d  century;  upon  that  the  battle  is 
waged  step  by  step  ;  everything  you  will  lind  disputed 
somewhere.  But,  by  way  of  beginning,  I  can  satisfy  an 
unprejudiced  mind.  It  is  the  almost  uniform  testimony 
of  antiquity  that  Matthew  was  written  in  the  1st  century  ; 
one  party  says  8  years  after  the  ascension,  another  15, 
and  some  tix  the  date  at  38  A.  D.  Internal  grounds  in 
Matthew  would  give  a  period  somewhat  remote  from  the 
ascension  of  our  Lord.  e.  g.,  xxvii  ch.,  8  vs.  :  "  AVhere- 
fore  that  field  was  called  the  Field  of  Blood,  unto  this 
day,"  implies  considerable  lapse  of  time  after  the  cruci- 
fixion ;  xxviii  ch.,  15  vs. :  "And  this  saying  is  commonly 
reported  among  the  Jews  until  this  day."  The  xxiv  ch., 
on  the  other  hand,  in  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem is  predicted,  shows  it  was  written  before  that  event, 
that  is,  before  the  year  70  A.  D.,  and  in  all  probability 
before  the  breaking  out  of  the  Jewish  war  in  66  A.  D. 
The  absence  of  allusions  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  to  writ- 
ten Gospels,  seems  to  show  that  the  Gospels  were  not 
written  prior  to  them. 

The  testimony  of  the  fathers  consists  simply  of  quo- 
tations. We  do  not  find  statements  distinct  and  posi- 
tive as  desirable,  but  frequent  references  to  them  prove 
that  at  the  time  they  wrote  the  Gospels  were  already 


56 

canonical,  and  that  tradition  had  coine  down  to  them  un- 
broken from  apostolic  days.  The  position  of  Papias  is 
of  importance  in  reference  to  the  Gospels  in  general. 
There  is  some  doubt  about  Papias;  Ircnaeus  saj^s  he 
was  a  scholar  of  John  and  a  disciple  of  Polycarp.  A 
little  confusion  has  arisen  between  the  Apostle  John  in 
Ephesus  and  John  the  elder.  Some  deny,  as  Dr.  Schaft, 
that  there  was  a  John  the  elder  ;  others  say  there  were 
two,  the  elder  contemporaneous  with  the  Apostle,  and 
that  Papias  belonged  to  that  apostolic  circle  with  Poly- 
carp, and  hands  down  to  us  the  immediate  Asian  tradi- 
tion in  which  Polycarp  was  the  successor  of  John.  The 
writings  of  Eusebius  preserve  part  of  the  book  of  Pa{)ias, 
"  The  oracles  of  our  Lord."  Now,  what  does  that 
mean  ?  A  collection  of  the  discourses  of  Christ  and 
a  new  gospel  of  his  own  ?  If  it  does,  there  is  no  proof 
in  that  fact  of  the  prior  existence  of  Matthew.  But  if 
he  wrote  an  exposition  of  the  previously  existing  Gos- 
pel, then  the  book  of  Papias  is  evidence  that  the  Gospel 
was  written  before  his  day.  This  has  occasioned  consid- 
erable dispute.  Modern  critics  say  it  was  an  attempt 
to  write  a  new  collection  of  the  discourses  of  Christ 
from  reports  by  witnesses  whom  he  knew.  Apologetic 
criticism  holds  the  other  ground,  that  he  means  i)iterpre- 
tation  of  the  previously  existing  Gospel.     For 

I.  A  later  writer,  having  the  book  before  him,  classed 
Papias  among  the  excgetes;  describes  that  book  as  an 
exegesis.  II.  The  passage  of  Papias,  "I  will  not  scruple 
to  insert  new  matter  I  have  received  by  word  of  mouth 
from  the  elder,"  implies  that  his  book  was  based  upon 
a  gospel  in  his  hand.  This  theory  agrees  well  wiih  the 
extant  fragments  preserved  in  Eusebius. 

Now  if  this  book  of  Papias  inplies  the  existence  of 
gospels  before  his  day,  what  gospels  were  they  ?  First, 
he  refers  to  Matthew  and  Mark.  Bnt,  says  the  other 
side,  there  is  no  proof  in  this  that  the  gospels  given  by 
name  as  canonical,  are  in  the  original  form;  what  Papias 
refers  to  is  the  previous  Hebrew  Matthew,  a  shorter  af- 
fair containing  very  little  that  is  in  our  Mattliew.  This 
is  answered  in  several  ways;  partly,  because  by  the  con- 
temporaries  and   successors,  as  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian, 


57 

from  all  parts  of  the  church,  the  number  tour  is  applied 
to. the  Gospels.  There  are  four  Gospels  alread}-  in  the 
very  first  testimoii}-  we  have  concerniuo;  him,  and  that 
number  is  not  incidentally  mentioned,  but  is  descanted 
upon  and  discussed. 

But  what  has  become  of  them  ?  The  skeptical  theory 
is  that  the  canonical  Gospel  grew  up  by  accretion,  and 
that  myths,  traditional  tales  and  legends  were  mixed  with 
them.  Now,  what  has  become  of  these  earlier,  primi- 
tive Gospels  ?  what  accounts  for  their  suddenly  giving 
place  for  our  four  canonical  Gospels  as  we  have 
them?  The  theory  is  without  proof,  for  all  questions 
will  be  abundantly  satisfied  if  we  apply  to  our  Greek 
Gospels.  There  are  two  points  in  the  testimony  of  Pa- 
pias.  One  is  that  in  his  description  of  the  Gospel 
cf  Matthew,  he  distinctly  says  thi^t  Matthew  wrote  the 
loy'ia  of  Christ.  The  argument  for  that  1  have  stated 
before ;  skeptical  criticisms  say  that  Xoy'ia  means  dis- 
courses diflerent  from  our  Gospels.  But  it  means 
"  oracles,"  not  discourses.  And  in  the  description  Pa- 
pias  gives  he  makes  a  quotation  from  this  Gospel  which 
is  justified  by  all  the  Greek  MSS.  The  testimony  ot 
Papias  is  sufficiently  satisfactory. 

Let  us  come  down  to  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lj^ons, 
130-200  A.  D.  He  went  from  the  east  to  the  west.  His 
testimony  proves  not  only  that  the  gospels  were  generally 
accepted  in  his  time,  but  that  they  were  ancient.  New, 
he  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  Polycarp  of  John  and 
other  contemporaries.  The  question  arises  again  whether 
St.  John  is  meant  or  the  elder  John.  But  even  with  that 
uncertainty  the  evidence  is  not  invalidated,  for  if  it  comes 
from  the  elder  it  comes  from  the  apostolic  circle  of  which 
John  was  the  centre.  A  passage  in  Irenaeus  is  always 
enough  for  me  :  "  When  I  was  yet  a  child  I  saw  thee  in 
Polycarp's  house,  wliere  thou  art  distinguished  in  court. 
I  can  more  distinctly  recollect  things  which  happened 
then  than  others  more  recent.  I  can  recall  Polycarp's 
appearance,  the  style  of  his  address,  frequent  references  to 
Saint  John  and  the  others  who  had  seen  our  Lord,  and  how 
he  used  to  repeat  from  memory  their  discourses  which  he 
had  heard  from  them  of  His  miracles  and  works.     There 


58 

was  in  all  that  he  said  a  strict  agreement  wi'h  the  Scriptures.'" 
Now  what  could  be  desired  in  the  way  of  testimony 
clearer  or  more  accurate?  Irenaeus  hears  Polycarp 
only  one  remove  from  the  apostles.  If  we  suppose 
Irenaeus  compared  what  Polycarp  said  to  our  canonical 
gospels,  which  were  the  Scriptures  in  his  day,  then  we 
have  what  is  required:  This  is  confirmed  when  Irenaeus 
gives  over  400  quotations  of  the  gospels,  which  are  justi- 
fied by  comparison  with  our  canonical  gospels.  In  the 
face  of  facts  likL»  that  what  is  the  use  of  theory  ?  es- 
pecially, when  we  combine  Pa[)ias,  Irenaeus  and  Tertul- 
lian  of  North  Africa?  Tertullian,  writing  in  the  second 
century,  argues  from  the  testimony  of  the  apostolic 
church  that  what  was  true  for  the  apostolic  church  is 
true  for  us  ;  just  our  modern  basis.  He  makes  700  quota- 
tions, all  of  which  we  find  justified  in  our  Greek  gospel. 
About  170  A.  D.  two  Harmonies  of  the  Gospels  appear, 
one  described  by  Eusebius,  another  by  Jerome.  Igna- 
tius, Bishop  of  Epliesus,  in  letters  written  on  his  way  to 
Rome  quotes  our  gospelB.  So  does  Polycarp.  The  testi- 
mony of  Justin  Martyr  is  anotiier  hot  dispute.  He 
died  about  166.  He  wrote  two  apologies,  the  first  A.  D. 
139,  or  as  some  say,  138,  and  the  second  161.  Justin 
uses  the  three  synoptical  gospels,  quoting  largely  from 
Matthew.  In  the  earliest  of  ihese  writings  he  says  these 
memorials  are  read  after  the  Prophets  every  Lord's-day 
in  the  assemblies  of  Christians. 

Now  the  opposing  criticism  says  that  these  quota- 
tions from  a  gospel  literature  do  not  prove  that  they  were 
taken  from  our  three  synoptical  gospels.  I.  Because  he 
does  not  use  the  formula  of  quotation.  There  is  an  im- 
portant point;  that  the  heathen  authors  do  not  introduce 
quotations  by  saying  "  The  Scripture  says."  They  make 
a  distinction  between  quoting  the  0.  T.  and  the  gospel 
literature  which  they  do  not  call  Scripture.  This  may 
have  four  special  answers.  1.  It  was  natural  from  the 
way  in  which  the  N.  T.  canon  grew  up  that  there  should 
be  a  distinction  between  it  ai]d  the  O.  T.  Scriptures. 
The  term  Scriptures  was  familiar  as  pertaining  to  the  O. 
T.  Christianity  was  based  on  the  prophecy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, still  itwas  thoughtthatthetitle  should  be  especially 


59 

applied  to  the  O.  T.  2.  Justin,  in  the  works  in  which  he 
makes  these  quotations  is  writing  to  the  heathen  ;  writ- 
ing apok)gies  in  which  one  of  th*^  greatest  sources  of 
proof  is  the  agreement  of  the  facts  of  the  N.  T.  with  the 
O.  T.  Scriptures.  3.  The  point  made  by  hiter  apologists 
is  very  important,  viz.,  that  we  find  that  after  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  our  four  gospels  have  become  canonical,  this 
same  usage  obtains  among  the  fathers  2-300  3'ears  later. 
If  there  was  any  inference  from  the  earlier  there  ought 
to  be  from  the  later.  The  objection  proves  too  much. 
That  is  enough  to  invalidate  it.  4.  Justin  himself  quotes 
the  0.  T.  Scriptures  constantly  in  tlie  same  way  as  he 
does  the  New  ;  frequently  quotes  passages  of  the  O.  T. 
without  referring  to  their  sourc<^,  just  as  he  does  with 
tlie  N.  T.  That  is,  he  puts  them  on  the  same  level  as  to 
authority.     The  objection  is  thoroughly  met  I  think. 

II.  The  opposing  criticism  says  tliat  from  all  these 
quotations  we  cannot  prove  that  they  are  from  our  Gos- 
pels, but  (^nly  that  they  and  our  gospels  were  taken 
from  the  same  original  source,  a  floating  mass 
of  evangelical  tnaterials  out  of  which  our  Gospels 
were  formed.  The  cardinal  points  in  answer  to  this 
theory  are  :  1.  As  early  as  the  latter  half  of  the  2d 
century,  of  all  these  preexisting  forms  of  evangelical 
material,  four  only  existed,  and  these  were  universally 
accepted  by  the  church.  How  do  you  account  for  it  that 
out  of  all  this  material  the  church  settled  down  on  these 
four  ?  What  had  become  of  the  rest  ?  The  truth  is  that 
this  skeptical  theory  is  built  on  conjecture  and  perversion 
of  facts.  So  far  as  history  knows  there  is  no  proof  of  a 
preexisting  form.  2.  Four  must  have  existed  as  far  back 
as  Irenaeus,  and  there  was  only  one  person  between  him 
and  John.  Irenaeus  argues  that  there  must  be  four  and 
no  more  ;  this  implies  that  there  always  had  been  four. 
3.  Now  as  to  these  "  Memorials  of  the  Apostles."  The 
skeptic  says  we  cannot  prove  that  this  is  a  reference  to 
the  canonical  Gospels.  Bat  notice  that  Irenaeus  says 
that  their  authors  were  apostles  and  their  companions,  and 
that  these  "memorials"  were  read  in  the  churches  after 
the  Prophets  every  Lord's-day.  The  skeptics  cannot 
get  over  this  by  saying  t^at  Justin  did  not  write  them,  or 


60 

that  ti  e  text  is  spurious,  which  is  their  last  resort.  4. 
If  these  fathers  quoted  from  a  previous  mass  of  throwing 
material  and  not  from  the  Gospels,  we  would  find  in  the 
quotations  trace  of  those  mythical  accretions,  and  a  good 
deal  that  is  not  in  the  canon.  The  quotations  of  Justin 
agree  c  ean  and  clear  with  the  canonical  Gospels,  and 
this  it  is  the  merest  effrontery  to  deny.  True,  the}'  are 
not  verhally  correct  ;  but  neither  are  the  quotations  of 
the  fathers  after  the  canon  is  settled.  Besides  Justin 
quotes  the  O.  T.  freely. 

Another  point  is  that  he  refers  to  facts  and  sayings  of 
Christ  not  in  our  Gospels.  But  what  does  this  amount 
to?  Why,  that  there  are  a  few  references  to  tradition- 
ary sayings  not  found  in  the  Gospels,  but  in  the  later 
fathers;  very  few  and  unimportant.  Not  one  of  these 
extra-canonical  statements  is  referred  by  him  to  the  "me- 
morials of  the  apostles,"  ^d.7toij.v/]ij.6vvj[j.aTa  rcov  oltto^toXcov. 

[See  Westcott,  Prof.  Fisher  of  Yale,  and  Lightfoot's 
articles  in  the  Cotemporary.] 

Another  point  has  received  recent  investigation.  The 
skeptics  make  this  argument  which  you  will  see  to  be 
forcible.  Most  of  these  fathers  are  preserved  only  in 
fragments  in  Eusebius ;  the  motive  of  Eusebius  was  to 
preserve  ancient  testimony  for  the  canon.  Now,  say  the 
skeptics,  if  it  had  been  true  that  these  men  had  quoted 
the  Gospels,  Eusebius  would -»^  have  tried  to  preserve 
their  testimony.  But  if  ever  an  argument  has  been 
exploded  this  has  been.  For,  I.  Eusebius  distinctly 
states  that  he  proposes  to  give  testimony  for  acknowl- 
edged books  only  when  the  writer  has  something  new 
to  say,  some  anecdote  to  relate  about  them.  He  never 
proposes  to  himself  to  exhaust  quotations  for  acknowl- 
edged books  from  the  early  fathers.  For  the  "  antileg- 
om^ena,"  however,  he  wants  to  show  proof,  because  they 
were  not  universally  received.  II.  Most  fortunately  we 
have  complete  writings  extant  that  were  in  the  hands  of 
Eusebius,  and  we  find  that  he  treats  them  in  precisely 
the  same  way.  For  instance,  Clement  of  Rome  quotes 
the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  freely  ;  Eusebius  quotes 
Clement  only  on  Hebrews;  his  silence  proves,  therefore, 
that  Clement  knew  none  of  our^canonical   books  except 


61 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Ignatius  quotes  John,  Pe- 
ter, etc.  Eusebius  Jiever  saj'S  a  word  about  this  except 
in  reference  to  the  saying  of  Christ  to  Peter  after  the 
resurrection  to  feel  his  liands  and  feet.  Polycarp  quotes 
Acts,  Epistles  of  Paul,  etc.,  but  Eusebius  refers  onl3'  to 
liis  quotation  from  I  Peter.  From  Justin  Martyr  Euse- 
bius quotes  only  the  Apocalypse.  Irenaeus  enumerates 
13  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  refers  to  Acts  and  Luke.  Eu- 
sebius knows  nothing  of  him  according  to  the  skeptical 
•argument. 

"  I  shall  not  take  time  to  go  through  the  testimony  of 
heretics  or  the  heathen  writers.  Some  of  it  is  very 
strong,  especially  that  which  goes  up  to  the  first  century 
—  some  taking  us  up  to  the  very  litetime  of  the  Apostles 
themselves.  Of  course  the  date  of  these  writings  is  in 
dispute  in  skeptical  argument.  I  would  simplj'  refer  to 
Barnabas,  who  writes  an  epistle  analogous  to  the  He- 
brews. For  a  long  time  tliis  epistle  existed  only  in  a 
corrupt  Latin  version,  in  which  occurs  the  sentence  : 
"  Lot  us  take  care  that  we  be  not  of  them  of  whom  it  is 
written  that  many  are  called  and  few  chosen."  This  has 
been  the  subject  of  a  great  deal  of  discussion.  Critics 
put  this  Barnabas  in  the  second  decade  of  the  2d  cen- 
tury ;  Tischendorf  puts  him  in  the  last  decade  of  the  1st 
century,  thus  linking  his  testimony  to  that  of  John.  The 
importance  of  his  quotation  is  in  the  formula  with 
which  it  is  introduced,  viz :  "It  is  written."  Skeptics 
for  a  long  time  said  this  was  not  original,  but  the  work 
of  a  later  hand,  out  of  analogy,  etc.  When  the  origi- 
nal Greek  of  this  was  discovered  with  the  Sinaitic  MS., 
it  was  considered  quite  a  triumph.  That  happened  be- 
fore Strauss  died,  and  it  is  worth  while  to  repeat  what 
he  said  about  it :  "  That  the  quotation  was  not  from 
Matthew  but  from  the  4th  book  of  Esdras — 'Many  are 
born  but  few  saved.'  "  This  is  the  way  Strauss  satisfied 
himself. 

Leaving  this  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  little 
book  of  Tischendorf's — When  Were  Our  Gospels  Writ- 
ten ?  This  was  prepared  as  a  contribution  for  the  Evan- 
gelical Alliance  of  the  continent  not  many  years  ago, 
and  afterwards   enlarged.     It  was  considered  so  impor- 


62 

tant  a  controversial  docnnient,  that  it  was  immediately 
taken  np  b}'  the  tract  societies  and  translated  into  every 
language  of  the  continent.  It  was  also  taken  up  by  the 
London  and  American  Tract  society,  and  widely  distri- 
buted. It  was  hotly  attacked  by  the  critics.  In  the 
main  it  is  truthful,  and  certainly  most  earnest  and  schol- 
arly. When  you  come  across  reading  men  whose  minds 
are  disturbed  on  this  question,  you  could  give  them  no 
better  tract  on  the  subject. 

Characteristic  Designs  of  the   Gospels. 

The  four  Gospels  not  only  differ,  but  seem  to  be  in- 
consistent with  one  another.  Now  a  rational  harmony 
must  reconcile  them,  and  also  account  for  their  differ- 
ences; must  show  that  these  differences  did  not  arise 
from  accident,  but  that  each  Gospel  has  a  purpose  of  its 
own,  and  presents  the  subject  from  a  peculiar  point  of 
view  with  a  certain  definite  design.  It  accounts  for  ar- 
rangement, and  for  the  omission  of  various  details  char- 
acterizing the  method  of  presentation.  If  we  find  that 
the  deviations  are  not  merely  accidental,  such  as  might 
com.e  from  various  witnesses,  but  all  of  the  same  kind  ; 
that  each  Gospel  rigidly  adheres  to  a  purpose;  then  we 
have  a  much  higher  view  of  these  differences,  and  see 
that  they  may  not  only  be  accounted  for,  but  that  they 
are  the  very  highest  confirmation  of  testimony.  Now,  if 
I  can  give  you  just  even  the  germinal  idea  of  the  specific 
character  of  the  several  Gospels  it  will  be  a  gain.  There 
are  certain  prejudices  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  divest 
the  mind  ;  we  have  to  contend  with  your  familiar  knowl- 
edge of  them,  knowledge  derived  from  the  practice  of 
reading  extracts,  short  passages  ai  different  times.  I 
wonder  how  many  of  you  ever  read  one  of  them  through 
at  a  sitting,  oi-  in  a  day  or  a  week,  to  see  what  it  is  de- 
signed for.  Now,  undoubtedly,  the  same  vague  impres- 
sion would  follow  an  analogous  use  of  any  composition 
whatever;  take  a  political  paper  and  use  it  as  you  do 
the  Gospel,  and  the  result  would  be  the  same.  More 
than  that,  it  requires  an  effort  to  overcome  the  habit 
and  arouse  the  mind  for  a  new  position.     Unless  some 


63 

such  eftbrt  is  niacle  carefully  and  conscientiously,  the 
very  statement  that  the  Gospels  have  different  desiu^ns 
appears  stransfe  and  improbahle. 

Kfej^ing  in  mind  the  fact  that  no  one  of  tiie  Gospels 
proposes  to  give  a  complete  history,  our  first  business  is 
to  see  what  governs  each  one  in  the  selection  of  mate- 
rials from  the  general  mass.  It  has  been  recognized 
from  the  time  of  the  fathers  down,  that  Matthew's  grand 
i(iea  was  to  show  the  evidence  that  the  man  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  of  prophecy  and  the  Saviour 
looked  for  under  the  old  dispensation.  After  the  church 
was  established,  it  remained  many  years  struggling  in 
Syria  before  it  began  to  call  in  the  heathen.  It  first 
labored  in  Palestine,  then  at  Damascus  and  Antioch. 
Now  with  the  Jews  of  course  the  first  effort  was  to  over- 
come tlie  prejudice  against  the  Messiah,  to  recognize  in 
the  suffering  Lord  the  Messiah  of  prophecy.  That  is 
the  purpose  of  Peter's  writings,  and  it  distinguishes 
them  from  others  in  the  N.  T.  And  this  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew belongs  to  the  same  stage  of  the  church  with 
the  writings  of  Peter  and  James,  and  is  addressed  to  the 
same  class  of  minds.  This  is  recognized  by  all  writers 
from  the  earliest  times.  "  Matthew's  effort  is  not  to 
narrate,  but  to  demonstrate  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
by  showing  the  correspondence  of  his  life  with  the  pro- 
phecy and  types  of  the  0.  T.,"  says  Dr.  Alexander. 
According  to  this  view  his  object  was  not  to  give  a  de- 
tailed biography  of  Christ  or  a  history  of  his  ministry, 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  to  enter  into  a  formal  argument- 
ative proof  of  his  Messiahship,  in  a  systematic,  theo- 
logical way  ;  but  by  combining  the  two  characters  of 
argument  and  narrative,  to  write  his  life  with  the  de- 
sign of  showing  the  fulfillment  of  O.  T.  prophecy. 
Matthew  therefore  selects  circumstances  which  corres- 
pond with  the  O.  T.  types  and  prophecy,  and  omits  a 
vast  amount  of  other  things.  You  can  carry  this  through 
Matthew  page  by  page  and  verse  by  verse ;  the  more 
you  read  the  more  you  will  see  this  design.  In  stating  a 
particular  fact  in  the  life  of  Christ,  he  will  state  just  so 
much  as  will  bring  out  that  point.  So  his  Gospel  is  an 
historical  argument.     This   is  familiarly  illustrated   by 


64 

the  argument  of  an  advocate  in  a  court  dealing  with  a 
mass  of  testimony  ;  the  witnesses  have  been  heard,  and 
tlie  counsel  of  the  opposite  sides  sum  up.  They  have 
the  same  historical  material,  yet  how  entirely  diflferent  in 
the  selection  and  grouping  of  details  is  the  one  argument 
from  that  of  the  opposing  counsel. 

If  you  look  in  Matthew,  then,  for  the  kind  of  proof 
given  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  you  are  disappointed 
of  course.  Nevertheless,  his  design  is  clearly  kept  in 
view;  he  proceeds  in  the  narrative  style,  in  a  simple, 
easy,  story-telling  way,  uniformly  recurring  to  the  same 
plan,  I  believe  it  will  strike  any  one  with  surprise,  as  he 
goes  on  to  study,  to  si^e  into  what  minute  particulars  the 
evidence  of  this  design  can  be  traced. 

I.  Matthew  is  distinguished  from  the  others  in  quot- 
ing the  prophecy  of  the  0.  T.  far  more  than  any  other 
evangelist.  Whenever  opportunity  occurs  he  gives  the 
direct  quotation  in  language  that  cannot  be  mistaken. 
More  of  our  Saviour's  quotations  from  the  O.  T.  are  pre- 
served in  Matthew  than  in  the  oth^r  evangelists.  The 
amount  of  these  quotations  is  a  great  deal  larger  than 
you  would  suppose  without  examination  ;  I  have  forgot- 
ten the  figures,  but  a  very  considerable  portion  is  thus 
occupied. 

II.  His  principle  of  arrangement  being  topical  ra- 
ther than  chronological,  he  groups  miracles  and  para- 
bles that  are  alike  in  character,  tracing  the  same  aspect 
of  Christ's  work.  The  topical  style  of  ^vriting  history, 
rather  than  the  chronological,  is  a  striking  feature  of 
Matthew's  Gospel,  though  the  chronological  order  is  not 
necessarily  disregarded.  But  events  are  grouped  by 
their  kind  rather  than  by  their  position.  For  instance, 
we  do  not  find  a  miracle  until  the  8th  chapter,  and  then 
we  find  two  chapters  full  of  nothing  but  miracles  ;  no 
parable  is  reached  until  the  13th  chapter,  where  there  is 
one  of  the  largest  groups  in  the  Gospels.  Of  course 
these  groups  must  be  broken  up  if  we  arrange  them  in 
chronological  order. 

III.  When  he  records  an  event  given  in  the  other 
gospels  he  goes  less  into  detail,  giving  a  narrative  of 
the  occurrence  in  outline.  A  constant  characteristic  of 
Matthew  is  the  generic  plural. 


65 

IV.  It  follows  from  this  design  that  he  presents  the 
official  or  Messianic  aspect  of  Christ's  work  and  person. 
Of  course  he  is  the  same  Christ  in  all  the  four,  us  to  his 
humiliation  and  personal  character,  but  Matthew  makes 
his  official  characteristics  most  prominent.  Now,  what 
were  these  ?  They  are  the  three  great  offices  of  the  O.  T. 
economy — those  of  prophet,  priest  and  king.  Christ  is 
promised  in  prophetic  passages  under  each  of  these 
characters.  But  how  does  Matthew  show  the  fulfilment 
in  his  Gospel  ?  He  preserves  long  discourses  of  Christ, 
giving  fuller  illustration  of  bis  teaching  than  any  of  the 
other  Gospels  except  John.  So  the  spiritual  kingship 
is  constantly  impressed  on  this  Gospel  ;  e.  g.,  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  parables  illustrative  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven,  etc.  So  of  the  humiliation;  Matthew's  re- 
port of  the  words  rather  than  the  deeds. 

In  Matthew  the  narrative  is  only  one-fourth  of  the 
whole.  (In  Mark  it  is  one-half,  in  Luke  oue-third.)  It 
is  a  remarkable  fact  that  he  occupies  more  space  to  re- 
cord discourse  than  narrative.  Narrative  covering  con- 
siderable time  may  be  con)pressed,  but  discourse  of  the 
same  length  of  time  would  occupy  much  more  space  in 
the  record. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark.  The  name  which  tradition 
ascribes  to  this  author  is  of  Roman  origin.  It  occurs 
four  times  in  Acts,  three  times  in  Paul,  and  once  in 
Peter;  the  common  opinion  is  that  they  all  refer  to  the 
same  Mark.  Besides  this,  however,  he  had  the  Jewish 
name,  John.  He  is  first  mentioned  in  Acts  xii,  12, 
where  the  name  of  his  mother  is  given  ;  next  he  appears 
as  the  assistant  of  Paul  on  his  first  missionary  journey. 
Paul  refuses  his  company  on  the  second  journey,  but 
they  are  afterwards  reconciled.  Coloss.  iv,  10,  "  Sister's 
son  to  Barnabas,"  by  usage  may  mean  cousin  as  well  as 
nephew.  II  Tim.,  i,  v.  I  mention  these  because  the 
constant  testimony  of  the  ancient  church  is  that  Mark 
composed  his  Gospel  from  Peter's  personal  recollections. 
I  Peter,  v,  13.  Papias  calls  Mark  an  interpreter  of 
Peter.  Irenaeus  confirms  this  ;  so  do  Turtullian,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  Jerome,  Origen,  and  the  fathers 
generally.     Now  this    agrees    with  one  of  the  internal 


66 


characteristics  of  his  Gospel.  In  several  cases  Peter  is 
introduced  bv  name,  where  the  other  Gospels  give  no 
name.  Mark  i,  16,  29;  xi,  21.  Another  coincidence 
between  Mark  and  Peter,  is,  that  they  set  the  same  limits 
to  the  public  ministry  of  Christ.  It  has  been  very 
generally  believed  in  the  church  and  among  modern 
scholars,  that  Mark  was  under  tlu;  influence  of  Peter, 
and  that  the  primary  intention  of  his  Gospel  was  to  im- 
press the  Gentiles,  and  especially  the  Komans,  with  the 
idea  of  the  Messiah,  as  Matthew  did  the  Jews.  This 
opinion  is  based  partly  on  statements  of  the  Fathers, 
and  is  very  much  confirmed  by  the  omission  by  Mark 
of  those  elements  which  had  a  special  interest  for  the 
Jews,  as  genealogies,  references  to  prophecy,  etc.  This  is 
also  confirmed  by  his  stopping  for  explanations  when 
Jewish  customs  are  alluded  to,  even  when  they  were  most 
familiar.  Markvii,  2-4  ;  xii,18  ;  xiii,3;  xiv,12;  xv,  6,42. 
And  further,  by  his  use  of  certain  Latin  phrases  and 
Latin  words,  even  where  there  was  a  suitable  Greek 
equivalent.  Mark  xii,  42;  vi,  27;  xv,  39;  xii,  14. 
Most  of  these  are  Roman  words,  though  some  have 
Greek  equivalents. 

This  view  that  his  Gospel  was  intended  for  the  Ro- 
mans falls  m  with  the  general  conception  of  the  four 
Gospels,  viz  :  Matthew  for  the  Jews;  Mark  for  the  Ro- 
mans; Luke  for  the  Grecian  world,  and  John  ecumeni- 
cal. DaCosta  says  these  Roman  characteristics  are  to  be 
ditterently  accounted  for  ;  that  the  author  himself  is  a 
Roman  ;  that  there  were  two  Marks,  and  the  friend 
of  Paul  was  not  the  friend  of  Peter.  This  goes  with 
the  old  tradition  based  upon  these  Latin  phrases,  that 
the  Gospel  was  originally  written  in  the  Latin  language, 
an  opinion  contained  in  a  statement  at  the  end  of  the 
Peshito,  as  well  as  in  some  Greek  MSS.  But  the  evi- 
dence for  this  is  entirely  insufficient.  Some  exegetes 
take  his  first  sentence  as  a  statement  of  his  purpose  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sou  of  God,  by  present- 
ing his  divine  power  in  a  way  to  impress  those  ignorant 
of  the  O.  T.  This  he  does  by  such  a  representation  of 
his  words  and  acts  as  would  attract  in  public  places  and 
among  promiscuous  readers.     Whether  this  exegesis  be 


^j^y. 


/: 


true  or  not,  the  general  characteristic  of  the  Gospel  is 
true.  With  regard  to  Mark  Dr.  Alexander  says:  "  He 
gives  a  connected  narrative  of  the  public  ministry  of 
Christ,  displaying  by  examples  the  character  and 
method  of  his  work."  This  differs  from  Matthew's  de- 
sign in  that  he  does  not  argue  from  O.  T.  correspond- 
eii^ces.  His  purpose  is  illustrated  by  three  or  four  par- 
ticulars. Inteiiding  to  show  the  divine  origin  of  Christ, 
lie  dwells  chiefly  upon  his  acts  and  therefore  shortens 
his  narrative.  Secondly,  he  gives  very  few  narratives  not 
found  in  the  other  Gospels  (there  are  only  five  in  Mark 
which  are  not  in  Matthew,  and  only  two  not  in  the  other 
Gospels.)  From  these  grounds  of  brevity  and  coinci- 
dence with  the  others,  ihe  opinion  obtained  that  Mark 
was  only  a  complication  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  That 
this  is  erroneous  is  clearly  exhibited.  Thirdly,  while  he 
gives  the  narrative  in  fewer  words,  he  alwa3'S  adds  some- 
thing to  make  it  graphic  and  vivid.  This  dramatic  ele- 
ment is  the  chief  characteristic  of  Mark.  Several  times 
the  words  of  Christ  are  given  in  the  Aramaic.  While 
the  others  recording  the  Temptation,  say  Christ  was  in 
the  desert,  Mark  says  he  was  in  the  desert  "  with  the  wild 
beasts;"  at  the  calling  of  the  fishermen  disciples,  he 
says  they  left  their  fathers  "with  their  hired  ser- 
vants," presenting  a  better  idea  of  their  social  position. 
Quite  commonly  the  gesture  and  look  of  Christ  is  de- 
scribed, giving  us  an  idea  of  his  personal  presence  and 
method."  In  case  of  the  man  with  the  withered  hand  he 
says  :  "  He  looked  around  on  them  with  anger." 

He  differs  often  in  giving  more  emphatic  words ; 
e.  g.,  speaking  of  the  baptism  he  says,  the  heavens 
split.  This  fe'ature  of  his  gospel  can  only  be  ap- 
preciated by  careful  examination.  This  brief,  dra- 
matic character  falls  in  well  with  the  ascription  of 
this  gospel  to  Peter's  influence— that  of  a  practical, 
ardent,  impetuous  man,  able  to  reproduce  vividly  that 
which  made  a  deep  impression  on  his  own  mind.  Others 
go  still  further  and  say  that  Mark  was  like  Peter.  Cer- 
tainly, all  that  we  read  of  Mark  would  be  characteristic 
of  Peter  ;  he  starts  with  Paul  on  his  first  missionary 
journey  ;  Paul  appears  to  be  subordinate  to  Barnabas, 


68 

for  so  far  his  work  is  in  its  incipiencj- ;  just  as  soon  as 
Paul's  Gentile  church  beo;ins  to  arise,  and  the  Gentiles 
are  admitted  without  circumcision,  Mark  revolts  and 
leaves  them,  and  Paul  refuses  afterwards  to  take  him 
with  him.  This  is  exactly  like  Peter,  hasty,  yet  easily 
reconciled. 

I  have  ah-eady  said  the  narrative  occupies  half  of 
Mark;  there  is  no  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  but  four 
parables  are  given.  There  is  nothing  purely  biographi- 
cal, as  he  treats  only  of  the  public  ministry  of  Christ. 
MatthevvT,  then,  sets  forth  his  official  work,  and  Mark  de- 
monstrates, more  especially  to  the  Gentile  world,  the 
divinity  of  t'he  man  Jesus. 

Luke.  The  style  of  Luke  shows  that  it  was  intend- 
ed, probably,  for  the  Greek-speaking  world.  It  more 
nearly  approaches  the  common  dialect — this  is  especially 
true  in  Acts.  The  Acts  differ  from  the  Gospel,  for  the 
narrative  in  the  gospel  is  confined  to  Jewish  scenery  and 
Jewish  conversation  ;  in  Acts  the  subject  is  freer.  The 
latter  contains  some  beautiful  illustrations  of  style,  not 
specially  classical,  but  rhetorical;  e.  g.,  the  discourse  of 
Paul,  as  given  by  Luke  is  a  marvellous  specimen  of  rhe- 
torical composition.  The  discourse  is  so  brief  that  ob- 
viously it  is  the  inspired  account  of  what  Paul  said,  and 
not  his  ipsissima  verba. 

The  characteristict  of  this  Gospel  is  not  quite  so  easy 
to  present  without  longer  illustration,  though  it  is  just  as 
marked  as  that  of  the  others.  It  is  described  as  pre- 
senting the  idea  of  the  universality  of  the  Gospel,  sup- 
plementary to  Mark.  It  is  not  restricted,  as  Matthew, 
10  the  Jews,  nor  as  Mark,  to  the  Gentiles,  by  description 
of  acts  of  divine  power:  but  it  is  the  aspect  of  Christ 
as  the  world's  Saviour,  Jesus,  the  God-man — the  Saviour 
of  all-men.  Thus  incidents  are  selected  to  lay  stress  on 
his  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  humanity  and  his  human 
sympathy.  Hence  the  frequent  mention  of  our  Lord's 
engaging  in  prayer,  the  highest  proof  of  his  humanity. 
Mark  presents  Christ  as  the  wonder-worker  ;  Luke,  the 
man  having  a  superhuman  sympathy.  In  accordance 
with  this  design  is  the  fact  that  he  comes  nearer  to  bi- 
ography than  any  other.  His  narrative  begins  early, 
and  contains  much  the  others  omit.    We  may  notice  five 


69 

particulars  :  1.  At  an  early  period  it  was  felt  in  the 
church  that  the  first  two  Gospels  were  incomplete  as 
histories.  2.  A  sense  of  that  deficiency  had  stirred  up 
many  to  supply  it.  3.  The  source  of  materials  was  current 
in  the  form  of  oral  tradition.  4.  Luke  himself  had  the 
amplest  opportunities.  5.  His  specific  purpose  was  to 
reproduce  the  oral  history  and  establish  the  church  upon 
sure  grounds. 

One  point  of  view  will  tend  to  enlighten  the  mind, 
when  we  remember  his  connection  with  Paul.  He  was 
one  of  Paul's  closest  attendants,  and  the  author  of  the 
history  of  the  work  of  the  Apostles.  Paul  passes  from 
those  characteristics  which  belong  to  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  opens  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  It  is  natural, 
therefore,  that  Luke  is  the  man  in  writing  the  life  of 
Christ,  to  present  that  aspect  of  Jesus  which  corresponds 
with  Paul's  views.  The  great  controversy  of  Paul's 
early  ministry  was  with  the  Judaizers ;  his  great  doc- 
trines were  wrought  out  chiefly  in  the  course  of  that 
controversy  ;  as,  tracing  the  character  of  men  before 
God,  showing  that  all  are  saved  by  faith,  and,  therefore, 
all  are  on  the  same  footing.  As  Paul  probably  had  Luke 
under  his  eye  in  the  composition  of  this  Gospel,  un- 
doubtedly the  Gospel  of  Luke  would  contain  character- 
istics of  Paul's  mind;  niore  especially  as  Luke  w^as  the 
author  of  the  history  of  Paul's  work.  Matthew,  in  giv- 
ing the  genealogy  of  Christ,  goes  back  to  Abraham,  but 
Luke  contemplates  him  as  a  man  and  as  the  Son  of 
God.  Luther  says  Luke  would  make  Christ  common  to 
all  men.  Luke  ii,32;  vii,  2-10;  xvii,  12.  Matthew's 
parables  are  all  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven;  Luke's  set 
forth  the  personal  relations  between  God  and  believers 
and  men  generally;  e.g.,  the  Good  Samaritan;  the 
Lost  Sheep ;  the  Lost  Piece  of  Money  ;  the  Prodigal 
Son,  etc.  The  comparatively  historic  character  of  Luke 
is  stated  in  the  preface.  Corresponding  with  this  fact 
is  the  coincidence  of  Luke  with  general  history. 

The  subject  of  the  Gospel  of  John  is  too  wide  for  us 
to  enter  upon  at  present.  I  would  advise  you  to  read 
Westcott's  Introduction  to  the  Gospels,  and  Gregory's  Why 
Four  Gospels. 


\\               DATE  DUE 

ii     : 

^  I     , 

1    ^        ^ 

1    'f"      ^. 

t   i     I 

f    \    :. 

'4^/i^^  i 

>.p4z  1 

km 

^zi/3 

GAYLORD 

#3523PI 

Printed  in  USA 

